http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1449



--- Comment #15 from klickverbot <c...@klickverbot.at> 2011-06-16 08:44:21 PDT 
---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > What do you think about adding something like this to the spec? �If a 
> > program
> > which includes deprecated declarations compiles without any related errors, 
> > it
> > can be assumed to behave exactly the same if these declarations are 
> > completely
> > removed from the source.�
> > 
> > This would make the use case of �deprecated� clearer, and issues like the 
> > above
> > would be definitely bugs.
> 
> I've always assumed that to be the case, and it should probably be added to 
> the
> spec, but I don't believe it has any bearing on possible accepts-invalid bugs 
> -
> they compile anyway as the attribute is effectively ignored.

If that was stated explicitly in the spec, there is no way this bug could
possibly be INVALID, as removing the declaration of foo() in the original
example obviously breaks the build, even though it builds fine without �-d�
being specified at the command line. Or am I misunderstanding you?

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to