Missing compiler option: -features

[prjm]

See also: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37299549/how-to-specify-the-equivalent-of-featuresstrict-of-csc-exe-to-msbuild-exe-or

---

Document Details

⚠ Do not edit this section. It is required for docs.microsoft.com ➟ GitHub issue linking.

• ID: 9b29fc27-0985-b3ea-e1d4-338c1dc126ed
• Version Independent ID: cc362e14-4bcb-0b38-36ce-9b8502e5e4e2
• Content: C# Compiler Options Listed Alphabetically
• Content Source: docs/csharp/language-reference/compiler-options/listed-alphabetically.md
• Product: dotnet-csharp
• GitHub Login: @BillWagner
• Microsoft Alias: wiwagn

[svick]

I believe the -features switch is generally used for experimental features, so it's probably intentional that it's not documented.

[prjm]

I did not know that this switch is only for experimental features. Still, I'd propose to include this switch in documentation: not its possible values but only the fact that this switch is only used for experimental features. So that uninformed people which stumble over it on StackOverflow can understand the purpose of the switch.

[BillWagner]

ping @jcouv for comments. I'm inclined to agree with @svick but I'd like confirmation.

[jcouv]

Yes, -features is mostly used for experimental features.
My initial inclination was that we should document the option minimally (just to acknowledge its existence). But then I noticed we don't even list it in csc.exe -help. That indicates it was intentionally left undocumented.
So I recognize the issue @prjm points out (potential confusion), but I think we still shouldn't document it.

Some background:
We're making decreasing use of this option. It was used for prototype features, but nowadays we tend to use branched code base instead.
It seems we currently support two features, but I wouldn't want to document either:

• strict (which is a non-experimental feature, but will likely be superseded by warning waves)
• peverify-compat (which we'll probably remove some day).
  Last year we also had IOperation for a few months. We removed it once the feature shipped.

[BillWagner]

Thanks for the additional notes @jcouv

I'm closing this as by-design

[prjm]

Thank you for the information - while I understand the reasoning not to document experimental flags, I think the switch name feature is misleading in this case - it suggests that there are optional (and stable) features which can be enabled.