On Friday 14 January 2011 23:57:05 Walter Bright wrote: > Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > I'm wondering what the point of marking modules as scheduled for > > deprecation really is - at least the way that we've been doing it. I can > > understand marking a module as scheduled for deprecation if there's a > > planned replacement but no actual replacement yet in order to warn > > programmers that that module will be going away. However, at present, we > > seem to be using it to just tell programmers to use a replacement which > > actually does exist. That being the case, why are we marking them as > > scheduled for deprecation rather than just deprecating them? Having the > > pragma tell people what to use instead is certainly good, but I don't > > quite get why we've been marking modules as scheduled to be deprecated > > when we have a clear replacement for them and are telling programmers to > > use the replacement. Why aren't we actually deprecating them and then > > just using the pragma to indicate which module to use instead? > > Because it allows users to update their code on their own schedule, > rather than ours. It's very annoying to have your builds break for > reason X when you are hard at work developing Y.
True, but isn't that what -d is for? - Jonathan M Davis _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
