It is indeed quite controversial aspect of Zig's design. I would rather prefer it be a warning. Argument "warnings are always ignored" just doesn't hold because anything can be ignored if there is a way to suppress it.

▲

dnautics a day ago | parent [-]

there was a recent interview where andrew suggested if i understood correctly: the future path of zig is to make all compilations (successful or not) produce an executable. if theres something egregious like a syntax or type error, the produced artifact just prints the error and returns nonzero. for a "unused parameter", the compiler produces the artifact you expect, but returns nonzero (so it gets caught by CI for example.

▲

sumalamana a day ago | parent [-]

Why would the compiler do that, instead of just printing the error at compile-time and exiting with a non-zero value? What is the benefit?

	▲	dnautics 10 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		if you have a syntax error in file A, and file B is just peachy keen, you can keep compiling file B instead of stopping the world. Then the next time you compile, you have already cached the result of file B compilation.
	▲	j16sdiz 21 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It is more a debug/development feature. You can try out some idea without fixing the whole code base.