Le 2010-11-17 à 18:40, Andrei Alexandrescu a écrit :
> On 11/17/10 3:30 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
>> Le 2010-11-17 à 17:47, Andrei Alexandrescu a écrit :
>>
>>> On 11/17/10 2:42 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
>>>> But won't that just become a convenient excuse to forget putting the
>>>> deprecation notice in the documentation? It sounds redundant:
>>>>
>>>> /**
>>>> * Blah blah blah...
>>>> * Deprecated: use the homonym functions in std.mathspecial.
>>>> */
>>>> deprecated("use the homonym functions in std.mathspecial")
>>>> double lgamma(double);
>>>
>>> I thought it's pretty clear that having active deprecation notes is not
>>> redundant at all. The right solution to avoiding redundancy is to have ddoc
>>> insert the deprecation note in the generated text.
>>
>> Ok, so now you have two places where you can write your deprecation notes
>> instead of one, but only one will make the compiler output a helpful error
>> message?
>>
>> What if one day you want to deprecate functions informally (in the
>> documentation only) and at a later time you want to deprecate them formally
>> (making the compiler complain), should you coppy all your ddoc-style
>> deprecated sections to a string following the deprecated keyword?
>>
>> Is there any advantage in using the deprecated("note") syntax instead of
>> making the compiler use the existing Deprecated section of ddoc to print a
>> helpful comment?
>
> The advantage is that the deprecation error message will hint the user on
> what to do to fix things.
Can't the compiler do the same by extracting the deprecated note from the ddoc
comment?
--
Michel Fortin
[email protected]
http://michelf.com/
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
