On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:07:24PM +0000, John Colvin wrote: > On Friday, 14 March 2014 at 11:44:21 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote: > >"Manu" <[email protected]> wrote in message > >news:[email protected]... > > > >>So it comes up fairly regularly that people suggest that the > >>compiler should have a mode where it may update user code > >>automatically to assist migration to new compiler versions. > >> > >>I'm personally against the idea, and Walter certainly doesn't like > >>it, but it occurred to me that a slight variation on this idea might > >>be awesome. > >> > >>Imagine instead, an '-update' option which instead of modifying your > >>code, would output a .patch file containing suggested amendments > >>wherever it encountered deprecated code... The user can then take > >>this patch file, inspect it visually using their favourite merge > >>tool, and pick and choose the bits that they agree or disagree with. > >> > >>I would say this approach takes a dubious feature and turns it > >>into a spectacular feature! > > > >If you're using version control, these are practically the same > >thing. > > Yeah, I don't understand why it matters whether it's a change or a > patch. Either way, all changes become patches in VCS. Who would let > an automated tool make source changes without using VC, or at least > having made a manual backup?
I believe the point is to let the user *selectively* apply the diffs. A VCS doesn't help you in that area -- you either apply the entire set of changes, or nothing at all (at least within a single file). T -- Two wrongs don't make a right; but three rights do make a left...
