Re: RFunE: "Unused"ness for warnings transitive in GHC 6.0.1

Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> I'd be interested to know what others think about this.  The
> disadvantage with the GHC5 behaviour is that you might see a warning
> about "unused f", remove the definition of "f", and thereby provoke a
> new warning, for a function "g" that was mentioned in f's right hand
> side.[...]

That's exactly the reason why the current behaviour is much better than
the old one, IMHO, so I'd vote for: Keep the status quo.

BTW, C/C++ compilers usually behave in a similar way for file-local entities,
and I think people like it that way.

Cheers,
   S.