Warnings on uninitialized previous values?

[lgwagner]

I find myself using uninitialized previous values quite a bit and I find the warning annoying. Do we still need that validation?

[AFifarek]

I concur that the warning is annoying especially when I made the decision that it is not necessary to define the previous value. It was always more of a suggestion to the user to consider the need for an initialized previous value rather than a true warning. We could do one of three things: 1. Disable the warning altogether stating that documentation and experience should allow the user to determine if the initialized previous is necessary. 2. Enable a preference option to disable that warning if the user would like. 3. Provide an escape in the "previous" grammar construct / new command that explicitly shows that user intentionally does not want an initialized previous value. I think option 1, is most appropriate but like some aspects of option 2 and option 3 especially for users that are not as familiar with the tool. Bottom line, let's go with option 1 and take a look at the wiki to ensure it is covered well enough to support that decision.

…

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Lucas Wagner ***@***.***> wrote: Assigned #90 <#90> to @AFifarek <https://github.com/afifarek>. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#90 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGeTjMB99iV5krXo9V8DQpBKuGv-7EIfks5sbtgQgaJpZM4PCuYm> .

[jendavis]

I'm okay with any of the three options. I lean toward 2 and thought I saw that implemented, but I don't see it in 2.1.0 beta. Lucas, is it in your dev version?