"Jonathan M Davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:mailman.1523.1310360242.14074.digitalmars-d-annou...@puremagic.com... > *Sigh* I really need to kill the shortcut in my e-mail client for sending > messages. I was about to say that an implementation of > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5481 _is_ essentially what > we > need but that your example seems to show a lack of understanding of the > feature (particularly with regards to "scheduled for deprecation" rather > than > full deprecation). >
Well, that is why I asked. Yes, what I'm proposing is not exactly what was in the bug report. The way it seems to be done, removing a feature has three stages: 1. schedule for deprecation 2. mark as deprecated 3. remove it The point of stage 1 seems to be to warn the programmer that some time in the future they're going to need -d to compile their code. I'm really not convinced that this message should always be displayed, as most of the time it's useless noise. It does however make sense to print it out when compiling with -v or generate a warning when compiled with -w (or -wi). Then again, maybe 'scheduled for deprecation' is something that should be a lower level than warning. (If D had warning levels) In this case it should still only print with -v or -w.
