Jonathan M Davis, el 12 de November a las 19:19 me escribiste: > On Monday, November 12, 2012 11:08:23 Leandro Lucarella wrote: > > I'll be more than happy to make the changes if you convince Walter to merge > > them, it took me more than an year to convince him of this change, and it > > was completely backwards compatible :D > > > > I did it this way just to increase the chances of being merged, but I > > strongly believe the right default is to emit warnings for deprecations and > > have, say, -de for convert them to errors and the regular -d to completely > > silence them. > > > > Backwards compatibility is not a huge problem as for the extremely special > > cases when somebody want's the old behaviour as default, it can just add -de > > to dmd.conf and that's it. > > Except that the change _would_ be backwards compatible. Anything that's > already deprecated would just start compiling, whereas before it didn't > without -d.
Well, that's not backwards compatible in a strict sense. You are breaking the "should fail" tests, if you know what I mean. It will break people's expectations if they are relying in the old behaviour. I agree the impact is very low and in any case be easily fixed by adding -de to the dmd.conf. Any subsequent -d will override the -de effect and everything will behave as it did before. > Presumably -d still gets rid of the warnings/errors, so there > would be no change there. So, there wouldn't really be any effect until more > stuff is deprecated after the change is made, because those deprecations > wouldn't then break code. The only backwards compatibility which would be > lost would be the -di flag, since it wouldn't be needed anymore, but it was > just added, so dmd has never been released with it anyway. Of course unreleased code doesn't count when it comes to compatibility :) -di could be kept anyway, in case somebody wants to override a possible -de in the dmd.conf file. But I don't think this is such a big deal to justify keeping -di around. I'm just thinking out loud. > I'm all for arguing in favor of this, but I don't know what Walter's take on > it is. I would think though that the fact that making deprecated warn by > default would reduce code breakage would be something that he'd be interested > in given how much he hates it when people's code gets broken due to library > changes. Multiple of us have argued this in at least a couple of places > lately, but Walter hasn't responded to the idea anywhere AFAIK. Yeah, me either, the only response I saw was the sudden merging of the pull request :) -- _______________________________________________ dmd-internals mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
