Enable -- warning for mismatched param names by default in new desktop templates and the netsdk

[KevinRansom]

This PR: #3527 adds a warning for mismatched param names between signatures and implementations.

As a change it's highly breaking as so is not enabled by default in the compiler.

This issue asks to:

1. Enable it by default in new desktop projects
2. Enable it by default in all dotnet sdk projects
   .... yes it's a break, but those projects should be fresh and should be fixed.
3. Provide a project sectings options in the ide to enable / disable this.

[0x53A]

Can we please add a single parameter (maybe --strict?), which enables all these off-in-the-compiler-by-default warnings?

Then I would add this one to all my project files.

Roslyn has something similar

[matthid]

Yes I think typescript has something similar with the contract that you opt in new stuff automatically (and might break you).

[KevinRansom]

@0x53A I sort of like it ... How do you propose that we treat warnings that added in the future? is strict always strict and always getting tougher and tougher?

[0x53A]

How do you propose that we treat warnings that added in the future? is strict always strict and always getting tougher and tougher?

Yes. Strict means my code may break at any compiler update. Otherwise we would need --really-strict and --really-truly-strict at later points ;-)

Roslyn also "fixes" other compiler bugs in strict mode: https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/search?q=FeatureStrictEnabled&type=Code&utf8=%E2%9C%93

[KevinRansom]

I just chatted with @jaredpar. feature strict enables an ECMA compliance check.

but we have an option:

--warnon:<warn;...>

Perhaps if we enabled:
--warnon:all which turns on all warnings including those turned off with --nowarn:

[0x53A]

I don't remember one at the top of my head, but I think there were a few noisy warnings which are off by default on purpose and not due to backwards compatibility.

In contrast, I imagine strict to be the behavior we would want the compiler to have if this was version 1.0 and we didn't care about the past. There may well be a few warnings we want off even in strict by default.

[KevinRansom]

@0x53A ... yes I can see that ...

so --warnon:strict to enable the stricter warnings for all of the stuff we turn on in the templates.

Sound like a plan?

[0x53A]

Sounds good

[dsyme]

👍 from me