2014-09-27 1:15 GMT+09:00 David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d < [email protected]>:
> As Walter mentioned in a recent pull request discussion [1], the first > formal deprecation protocol we came up with for language changes looked > something like this: > > 1. remove from documentation > 2. warning > 3. deprecation > 4. error > > (The "remove from documentation" step is a bit questionable, but that's > not my point here.) > > However, in the meantime deprecations were changed to be informational by > default. You now need to explicitly need to pass -de to turn them into > errors that halt compilation. Thus, I think we should simply get rid of the > warning step, just like we (de facto) eliminated the "scheduled for > deprecation" stage from the Phobos process. > > Thoughts? > I agree that the current warning stage for the deprecated features is useless. Kenji Hara
