2015-03-26 15:16 GMT+01:00 Marcus Denker <[email protected]>: > > On 26 Mar 2015, at 15:12, Luc Fabresse <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 2015-03-26 12:04 GMT+01:00 Sean P. DeNigris <[email protected]>: > >> Marcus Denker-4 wrote >> > It was in the “private” category and as such removed when there where no >> > senders anymore after a >> > cleanup. >> >> Ahh, I like that practice! >> > > I was thinking that the deprecation pragma should be used (to warn users) > and a lint rule added (to help users preparing migration) and then the > method can be safely removed in the next version. > I know that it is fastidious to do so perhaps it is an idea to improve > tools on that front. > > > The problem is that it is hard to do when the code changes a lot. e.g. > maybe the method even makes no sense conceptually anymore? Private methods > are about private implementation details…. keeping a system working with > deprecation for private methods I think is near impossible. >
ah now I understand. you mean that the method was private *initially*. ok, I wrongly understood that you moved the method in the "private" protocol to signal that it will be removed in the next release. So ok you are right, private methods can change and external should not rely on it. Luc > > Marcus > >
