On Wednesday, 30 March 2016 at 12:58:00 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Sound better?
Yeah, thanks.
Not sure if it's worth it to repeat after each example. Feels
redundant.
I think it's important to state the previous and new behavior,
even though it's always the same. It does sound redundant, but
makes it easier to understand.
That's reasonable. You could kinda "compress" this, however -
full description on first occurrence and a brief one later on.
This is a common practice AFAICT:
With 2.070 and prior versions, compiling this works just fine.
With 2.071 and above, you will get either a deprecation
warning, or an error.
--> "With 2.070 and prior versions, compiling this works just
fine. In 2.071 it's deprecated (meaning you will get a warning
now and compilation error with some later version of the
compiler)"
With 2.070, this compiled just fine. However, printf is
supposed to be a private symbol of module ex2_a. With 2.071 and
above, this will trigger a deprecation warning. In the future,
the code will trigger an error.
--> "Fine with 2.070, deprecated in 2.071 because printf is
supposed to be a private symbol of module ex2_a"
In 2.070, this produces no warning or error. In 2.071 and
beyond, this will produce a deprecation warning, and eventually
an error.
--> "Fine with 2.070, deprecated in 2.071"
Anyway, not a big deal. Sorry if I've gone too far with
nitpicking :) Thanks for the article!
-Alexander
