On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:18:26AM +0000, Meta via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] > What about modifying is(typeof(...)) to return false for deprecated > symbols?
Wouldn't that break deprecated code? If the user compiles with -d, then deprecated code should compile, but with this change, it may not. One possible hack is to make is(typeof(...)) return true for deprecated symbols if compiling with -d, but that would mean changing language semantics with compiler flags, which Walter frowns on. > The thing is that this will break code, and it will continue to break > code in the future if somebody deprecates a symbol which is used in an > is(typeof(...)) expression. That makes it a lot harder for us to > deprecate anything. There doesn't seem like any *good* solution to > this problem. A bunch of us on bugzilla and github banged our heads together to come up with a good solution, but none seems forthcoming, which is why I brought the discussion here to the forum. T -- Music critic: "That's an imitation fugue!"
