I agree. It's not much different from a private implementation detail being public by accident and then being changed to private.
If we all agree on just making them private, I can cook up a pull request. Regards, Alex On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]>wrote: > On Tuesday, May 01, 2012 22:54:43 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: > > How are we going to do this? It's not obvious in the documentation that > > std.concurrency imports these core modules at all anyway. Do we want a > > proper deprecation process or just private-ify the imports here and now? > > There isn't really a way to have a proper deprecation process with imports. > The best that you can do is give a notice somewhere that they're going to > be > made private in the future and then later make them private. deprecate > can't > get involved at all AFAIK. > > Personally, I'd argue that as long as the fact that the imports are public > isn't mentioned in the documentation, we might as well just make them > private > immediately. > > - Jonathan M Davis > _______________________________________________ > phobos mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos >
_______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
