On Sunday, June 04, 2017 05:56:15 Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d-announce 
> On Saturday, 3 June 2017 at 06:09:21 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 03, 2017 02:00:13 Jack Stouffer via
> >
> > Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> >> I recommend a longer deprecation cycle than usual for this, as
> >> this will break many legacy libraries that don't get
> >> maintained often. A period of two years sounds about right.
> >
> > For Phobos, that _is_ the normal length of the deprecation
> > cycle. For the language itself, I don't think that it's
> > anywhere near as consistent, but I've gotten the impression
> > that deprecations in the language usually stick around for
> > quite awhile, but I haven't exactly tracked it closely, so I
> > don't know.
> >
> > - Jonathan M Davis
> All of the recent Phobos deprecations have been a year. 18 months
> at most.

If you think that, I think that you misunderstand how the Phobos deprecation
process works. When a symbol is deprecated, it's marked in the documentation
with the year-month that it will be removed from the documentation (usually
about one year from the point that it's deprecated). Once that year has
passed, the documentation is removed from Phobos, and instead, it's marked
with a non-ddoc comment stating that the symbol is explicitly undocumented
and that it will be removed at year-month where that's usually a year from
when the symbol is removed from the documentation. Once that second date
arrives, the symbol is completely removed. So, the whole deprecation cycle
is approximately two years, and if anything, it sometimes takes a bit
longer, because I'm sometimes slow to move the symbol along to the next

I suspect that what's confused you is that when the symbol is deprecated, it
states in the documentation that the symbol will be removed at year-month
and does not say anything about the fact that that removal date is when it
will be removed from the documentation, not when it will be fully removed
from the library.

- Jonathan M Davis

Reply via email to