http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9289
Leandro Lucarella <leandro.lucare...@sociomantic.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |leandro.lucarella@sociomant
| |ic.com
--- Comment #1 from Leandro Lucarella <leandro.lucare...@sociomantic.com>
2013-01-10 02:19:27 PST ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> This regression is introduced by the "Make deprecations as warnings the
> default.
> From my comment:
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1287#issuecomment-12080557
[...]
> Therefore this is a huge breaking against the language improvement process in
> the past few years.
How the default deprecation handling is changed compared to using -d in 2.060?
I'm not entirely convinced is really a regression if is the same.
I understand there is a problem, but I wonder if your suggested solution is
really needed:
> To fix the problem, we need to split deprecated language features into the
> two.
>
> Truly deprecated features
> This group contains all language features which already deprecated in
> 2.060 and earlier.
> Each of them prints deprecated message without -d switch.
> Each of them raises an error without -d switch. (Important!!)
>
> Softly deprecated features
> This group will print deprecation message for the using but not make an
> error in default, and may contain newly deprecated features from 2.061.
> Each of them prints deprecated message without -d switch.
> Each of them raises an error without -de switch. (Important!!)
Shouldn't be just plain errors the things that you don't want to allow them at
all? Or are you suggesting just a migration path to the new way of presenting
deprecations?
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
