ahahaa.. you guys are killing me.. You are taking things too serious. Yeah.. i would be gladly hear from Levente, what is 'the proper deprecation policy'. But since nobody described it, we are doomed to use one, invented before :)
Nothing is perfect, but its not the reason to fight. On 31 December 2010 15:34, Nicolas Cellier <[email protected]> wrote: > Stephane, > You can't be serious: you learn something usefull from students acid > comments and nothing from the ones of Levente ? > Comm'on! > It's guaranteed that you'll get complaints. Only who doesn't do anything > won't. > Forgetting is human, mistakes are, and unfortunately your are human too. > You must accept to fail, and you must accept some critics: it's up to > you to turn these in positive feedback. > > cheers > > Nicolas > > 2010/12/31 Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]>: >> Thanks for the usual rant. This is good to have you here because we could >> have forgotten. >> Now of course we apply deprecation (we are probably the guy responsible to >> get the methods in Squeak long long time ago) >> but there are moments when there is too much to deprecate or when people >> forget. >> And forgetting is humane. Now if your company has lot of money, we can hire >> another engineer and work full speed >> and apply even more software engineering practices. >> Now it does not mean that we do not pay attention. We pay attention to >> people and to their product. >> May be each community needs its pain in the ass after all it shows that we >> get cooler and cooler. But it would be nice >> if you could give us a break. >> >> Stef >> >> >> On Dec 31, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Levente Uzonyi wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010, John McIntosh wrote: >>> >>>> Well the question as pointed out was does this vm support weak object >>>> finalization? and since all closure vm support finalization, then >>>> asking the question was mute, so it was ditched. Sophie from the 2003 >>>> era had to ask. >>> >>> The need for the check it outdated, but the method is still sent by >>> external packages. With proper deprecation policy the method would be still >>> available. It would simply return true and raise a deprecation warning. >>> >>> >>> Levente >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/30/10, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Hopefully that can eventually be said as "backward compatibility with good >>>>> stuff is a priority for Pharo." Moving targets are perhaps best left >>>>> moving for now. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>> From: [email protected] >>>>> [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi >>>>> [[email protected]] >>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 6:13 PM >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] WeakArray>>isFinalizationSupported >>>>> >>>>> (or so) which is unrelated. The method was removed during a "cleanup". And >>>>> as you know, backwards compatibility is not a priority for Pharo. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Levente >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> =========================================================================== >>>> John M. McIntosh <[email protected]> >>>> Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com >>>> =========================================================================== >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
