RE: `looking-back' strange warning

[Drew Adams]

> > > It's a feature: calling `looking-back' without LIMIT is slow, don't do
> > > that. The compiler is telling you that.
> >
> > No, it is "warning" you that there are 2-3 "required" arguments, which
> > is patently false.  This is a product bug, IMO.  Wrong message.
> >
> > Letting you know how to improve performance or avoid slow performance is
> > helpful information, but it is not a "warning" - there is no danger
> > here.  And there is only one required argument.
> 
> The message specifically said "Warning:". How can you say it's not a
> warning?

1. I said that it warns you.  In its form it is clearly a warning.

2. IMHO, this kind of information should not be presented as a warning.
   There is no specific danger involved, such as possible loss of data
   or material.

> You're right that the wording could be improved, maybe it should say
> that this calling sequence is deprecated.

Precisely.  It can even say that use of the optional argument(s) is
recommended.  It can even say that this can improve performance.
It can add any information it likes, including how it affects
performance or what alternatives are available.

But IMHO the message should not take the form of a warning.
Or else it should actually warn of something.  Currently it does not.

At least as important is that it should not tell users that there
are 2-3 required arguments.  There is only 1 required argument.

(It doesn't even make sense to talk about 2-3 required arguments.
Required arguments are required.  There is no choice of 2 or 3.)

It's a poor message that apparently represents excessive zeal
on the part of someone who discovered an anti-use case and
wanted to give users some guidance about avoiding it.  That
would be fine (great!), but this is not the way to do that (IMHO).