On Saturday, April 16, 2016 22:04:46 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 05:23:26PM +0000, Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > Before I opened a PR, I wanted to get some second opinions. > > > > There is no reason IMO that the various overloads of toImpl should be > > public. Having the internal functionality of a parent function, in > > this case to, be exposed like this causes: > > > > 1. The docs to be cluttered with useless info. Anything pertinent can > > be moved to the to docs. > > 2. The function cannot be refactored because its guts are shown to the > > world > > > > Also, there is no reason that anyone should use toImpl over to. So can > > I please mark toImpl as deprecated in order to clean up std.conv? > > I'm pretty sure that toImpl being public is an oversight. The name > itself implies that it should be private. I seriously doubt any user > code actually calls toImpl directly... shouldn't it be just a matter of > marking it private instead? Do we really need to go through a > deprecation cycle for this?
toImpl has the documentation for all of the specific conversions. So, you can't make it private or that documentation would go away. - Jonathan M Davis