On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 03:51:48AM -0800, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Monday, December 01, 2014 11:21:23 bearophile via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > Jonathan M Davis: > > > > > but it's still better than leaving something as deprecated > > > permanently. > > > > Right, sorry, I meant disabled. > > But I don't like to keep those things disabled permanently, they > > eventually should be removed. > > I agree. I do think that we should strive for stability and backwards > compatibility, but if we're getting rid of something, then I think > that we should actually get rid of it at some point. That's part of > why we have the deprecation process that we have. [...]
I agree that if we're gonna remove something, we should actually *remove* it, not just leave an empty husk behind forever cluttering the code. That's why I suggested lengthening the deprecation cycle. But OTOH, how long can you drag out the deprecation process before it essentially becomes needless cruft that we're forced to carry around "almost forever"? T -- The computer is only a tool. Unfortunately, so is the user. -- Armaphine, K5
