RFC: gas .warning "msg" and .error "msg" directives?

[Ken Raeburn]

On Nov 2, 2004, at 22:01, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> How about .error and .warning directives, matching the following
> texinfo snippet?  In contrast to .err or just using an undefined
> pseudo, this allows the programmer to specify the output,
> similar to #warn and #error in cpp.
>
> +`.error STRING'
> +     This directive emits an error with the message STRING.  If you
> +     don't specify STRING, it defaults to `"(unspecified)"'.

Why not make it default to something that actually describes the 
situation, e.g., ".error directive invoked in source file".  
Conceptually, you could also make the message be required -- for .error 
that just means you print a slightly different message if it's omitted 
("missing .error parameter" for example), the practical difference is 
whether .warning without a message would be an error or not. :-)

Ken