Jonathan M Davis wrote:
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?
Deprecation is a multi-stage process. I don't want to make them change
their makefiles without warning.
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
