On Monday, 29 September 2014 at 10:15:07 UTC, David Nadlinger
wrote:
On Friday, 26 September 2014 at 18:38:43 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
Case against:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/2254#issuecomment-52764718
I don't think this is relevant for this discussion at all.
Vladimir asked for advance notice in terms of docs before
anything changes about the actual implementation. Making stuff
a Warning addresses this just as much or as little as making it
a Deprecation does.
To clarify, what I'm really asking is a one-release-window in
which both the old and new way to do something works without any
warnings or deprecated messages. This is so I'm not forced to
update the compilers or all my machines simultaneously. This is
especially important considering LDC/GDC usually lag one frontend
version behind: if you use bleeding-edge DMD for development, you
can't enable all the deprecation/warning messages (which should
be enabled during development of new code) without either
breaking GDC/LDC/DMD v. N-1 compatibility, or dealing with the
spam.
How the change is reflected in the documentation (kept, scheduled
for deprecation, or removed), is not very important to me
personally.
To put it differently: Were the issue in question a language
change (under the current deprecation process), Vladimir would
have complained all the same about DMD spewing Warning messages.
All's good as long as there exists syntax that is silently
accepted in both version N and N+1.
You might even be able to construe it as an argument in favor
of dropping the Warning stage – at least deprecation warnings
can easily be filtered out without hiding potentially useful
Warnings that might indicate something wrong with your code.
This would be more applicable if deprecation messages included a
version number indicating when a certain feature was deprecated.
