[Issue 9289] [Regression 2.061] Had been deprecated language features are enabled again in default
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9289 RazvanN changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||razvan.nitu1...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME --- Comment #27 from RazvanN --- This issue is no longer valid. I cannot reproduce any of the reported failings. --
[Issue 9289] [Regression 2.061] Had been deprecated language features are enabled again in default
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9289 --- Comment #26 from Leandro Lucarella leandro.lucare...@sociomantic.com 2013-02-27 09:24:34 PST --- (In reply to comment #25) -dXX should give a warning (not an error, not silence), whenever a deprecated feature is used when errors are gagged. You're talking about a new flag I guess... Not necessarily. It could be done with -dw for example. But then make -dw mean something different than no flag at all, right? Just trying to understand your suggestion. In other cases, the existing behaviour (silence) should be preserved. Only when gagged I assume. Yes, otherwise it's an error. Mmm, an error? Using -de I guess, if that's the default this is like reverting the make deprecations issue warnings by default. Basically I think that with any form of -d option, deprecated features should never compile without generating a warning (even when errors are gagged). Except for plain -d I guess. That's the original meaning of -d, silence everything. Possibly. We should just kill that, it's ridiculous. Maybe. Only when errors are gagged I guess. Otherwise is going back to where we started. When errors aren't gagged, using a deprecated feature is just an error. (The wording may mention that it's deprecated, but otherwise it's a normal error). When errors are gagged, it's again just an error, but nothing is printed. Why should it be an error to use a deprecated feature? I still don't understand why is this desirable when it was the whole point of making deprecation as warnings by default. With this, you upgrade to a new DMD version and your code gets broken if you happened to be using a recently deprecated feature instead of just getting a deprecation message. Deprecating something means it will be removed in the future not it already have been removed. And if you used some deprecated feature where errors are gagged, you're application will change its behaviour without any warnings. When compiled with -dw, whenever anything deprecated is encountered, display a warning message. Display this even if errors are gagged. ie, anything deprecated is either a normal error, or noisy accepted, and this is not affected by gagging. I think this really makes the feature useless. If you don't use -dw, your code won't compile. If you use it, you'll potentially get a lot of spurious warnings about gagged code that is using some feature that used to have a different meaning a while ago. I think that's far from ideal... If we leave things are they are now, the only problem I see is you don't know if some piece of error-gagged code uses a deprecated feature or not, and you'll only find out when the feature is completely removed, if you are lucky enough to notice the program changed its behaviour (if we keep deprecated features as errors, this will happen as soon as the feature gets deprecated instead of removed). Maybe we can add a flag (-dv for verbose maybe?) to print warnings for deprecated errors even when errors are gagged. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 9289] [Regression 2.061] Had been deprecated language features are enabled again in default
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9289 Leandro Lucarella leandro.lucare...@sociomantic.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Deprecated language |[Regression 2.061] Had been |features should be warn too |deprecated language |when errors are normally|features are enabled again |silented|in default --- Comment #23 from Leandro Lucarella leandro.lucare...@sociomantic.com 2013-02-26 03:26:54 PST --- (In reply to comment #22) (In reply to comment #21) BTW, Don, I see what you mean now, but that problem existed before making deprecations emit warnings by default (if you used -d). The default was only changed. It is true that there's always been a difference in is(typeof()) between when compiled with -d, and when not. However, historically that hasn't mattered so much -- it has been crazy to compile with -d. Agreed. This bug report gives the -d behaviour a higher priority than the no-flags behaviour. You're assuming that when a deprecated feature appears while errors are gagged, it's because it used to compile. That assumption is false. Yes, as I said I understand what you mean and agree too. I'll roll back the title to the original one to avoid spreading this confusion. Such code might, or might not be a use of a deprecated feature. There is no way to tell. The patch moves it from assume it's never a deprecated feature to assume it's always a deprecated feature. Effectively, you're changing an accepts-invalid bug to a rejects-valid bug. It's not an improvement. Here's what I think should happen: -dXX should give a warning (not an error, not silence), whenever a deprecated feature is used when errors are gagged. In other cases, the existing behaviour (silence) should be preserved. Basically I think that with any form of -d option, deprecated features should never compile without generating a warning (even when errors are gagged). When -d is not used, it should be as if those features don't exist -- there should be no difference between something that is deprecated, vs any other sort of error. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 9289] [Regression 2.061] Had been deprecated language features are enabled again in default
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9289 --- Comment #24 from Leandro Lucarella leandro.lucare...@sociomantic.com 2013-02-26 03:38:50 PST --- Woops! I wanted to commit only the title change... (In reply to comment #22) Such code might, or might not be a use of a deprecated feature. There is no way to tell. The patch moves it from assume it's never a deprecated feature to assume it's always a deprecated feature. Effectively, you're changing an accepts-invalid bug to a rejects-valid bug. It's not an improvement. Again, agreed. Here's what I think should happen: -dXX should give a warning (not an error, not silence), whenever a deprecated feature is used when errors are gagged. You're talking about a new flag I guess... In other cases, the existing behaviour (silence) should be preserved. Only when gagged I assume. Basically I think that with any form of -d option, deprecated features should never compile without generating a warning (even when errors are gagged). Except for plain -d I guess. That's the original meaning of -d, silence everything. When -d is not used, it should be as if those features don't exist -- there should be no difference between something that is deprecated, vs any other sort of error. Only when errors are gagged I guess. Otherwise is going back to where we started. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 9289] [Regression 2.061] Had been deprecated language features are enabled again in default
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9289 --- Comment #25 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2013-02-26 04:37:10 PST --- (In reply to comment #24) Woops! I wanted to commit only the title change... (In reply to comment #22) Such code might, or might not be a use of a deprecated feature. There is no way to tell. The patch moves it from assume it's never a deprecated feature to assume it's always a deprecated feature. Effectively, you're changing an accepts-invalid bug to a rejects-valid bug. It's not an improvement. Again, agreed. Here's what I think should happen: -dXX should give a warning (not an error, not silence), whenever a deprecated feature is used when errors are gagged. You're talking about a new flag I guess... Not necessarily. It could be done with -dw for example. In other cases, the existing behaviour (silence) should be preserved. Only when gagged I assume. Yes, otherwise it's an error. Basically I think that with any form of -d option, deprecated features should never compile without generating a warning (even when errors are gagged). Except for plain -d I guess. That's the original meaning of -d, silence everything. Possibly. We should just kill that, it's ridiculous. When -d is not used, it should be as if those features don't exist -- there should be no difference between something that is deprecated, vs any other sort of error. Only when errors are gagged I guess. Otherwise is going back to where we started. When errors aren't gagged, using a deprecated feature is just an error. (The wording may mention that it's deprecated, but otherwise it's a normal error). When errors are gagged, it's again just an error, but nothing is printed. When compiled with -dw, whenever anything deprecated is encountered, display a warning message. Display this even if errors are gagged. ie, anything deprecated is either a normal error, or noisy accepted, and this is not affected by gagging. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 9289] [Regression 2.061] Had been deprecated language features are enabled again in default
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9289 Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|pull| Severity|regression |major --- Comment #10 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2013-01-28 20:04:48 PST --- (In reply to comment #9) I don't see why language features should be treated differently. The only problem I see right now is deprecated features are not being warn when gagging (I think that's the term for when errors are silent to evaluate something at compile time that is OK to fail, like tratis(compile) or static if's). I think usage of deprecated features there should trigger a warning too. If the idea behind some of this construct is just to test if an old feature is still working, maybe that should be fixed and calculated through the compiler's version or something like that. If we keep deprecated language features as errors by default, we will end up with the exact same problem we had before making deprecations as warnings the default. Why would we want to do that? OK. I was convinced that it is the right thing to some extent. To make things keep simple, deprecations between language feature and user-defined symbols should be treated by a same way. I withdraw this regression, by lowering priority to major. The only problem I see right now is deprecated features are not being warn when gagging I'd try to implement it in experiment. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 9289] [Regression 2.061] Had been deprecated language features are enabled again in default
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9289 --- Comment #9 from Leandro Lucarella leandro.lucare...@sociomantic.com 2013-01-21 03:32:36 PST --- I don't see why language features should be treated differently. The only problem I see right now is deprecated features are not being warn when gagging (I think that's the term for when errors are silent to evaluate something at compile time that is OK to fail, like tratis(compile) or static if's). I think usage of deprecated features there should trigger a warning too. If the idea behind some of this construct is just to test if an old feature is still working, maybe that should be fixed and calculated through the compiler's version or something like that. If we keep deprecated language features as errors by default, we will end up with the exact same problem we had before making deprecations as warnings the default. Why would we want to do that? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 9289] [Regression 2.061] Had been deprecated language features are enabled again in default
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9289 David Nadlinger c...@klickverbot.at changed: What|Removed |Added CC||c...@klickverbot.at --- Comment #6 from David Nadlinger c...@klickverbot.at 2013-01-11 16:09:52 PST --- I'm not sold on the idea of adding additional complexity to the behavior of the deprecation-related switches. If you feel that some language features should be more than just deprecated by now, why don't chose the obvious option of just turning them into an error? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 9289] [Regression 2.061] Had been deprecated language features are enabled again in default
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9289 Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com --- Comment #7 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2013-01-11 17:30:22 PST --- (In reply to comment #6) I'm not sold on the idea of adding additional complexity to the behavior of the deprecation-related switches. If you feel that some language features should be more than just deprecated by now, why don't chose the obvious option of just turning them into an error? I agree, I think we are overengineering this. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 9289] [Regression 2.061] Had been deprecated language features are enabled again in default
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9289 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com 2013-01-11 19:12:02 PST --- Honestly, I think that it would be great in general to be able to distinguish between soft deprecation (warn about it) and hard deprecation (make it an error), but I can also understand not wanting to add that sort of complication to the feature, especially since it's a feature that should be needed relatively rarely. And if you only get one of the two, soft deprecations are far less disruptive, and I think that we were right to make deprecated warn by default, but it does pose a bit of a problem for the language features. For that, I think that there are two basic approaches which make sense: 1. Make deprecated work as it has been for language features and use normal warnings when we want to soft deprecate a language feature, which is exactly what we have been doing. But we keep the new behavior (warn by default) for the deprecated keyword. 2. Make at least some of the currently deprecated language features into errors rather than have them be deprecated. Then have deprecation for language features be exactly the same as it is for the deprecated keyword, so some features end up being errors which can't be disabled, and some become warnings rather than errors by default. If we go that route, we should probably also think about making some of the current warnings into deprecation warnings (e.g. when skipping the use of override). The second approach would probably be the cleaner of the two, but it does mean that we lose the ability to give an error for language deprecation by default and still allow for the feature to be used. On the other hand, using deprecation warnings instead of normal warnings for deprecating features would be great, because then people don't have to use -w or -wi to see them. And that would make doing stuff like deprecating delete much smoother, since it would ensure that anyone using it got bugged about it rather than just those folks who compile with warnings enabled. It also keeps its behavior in line with the deprecated keyword, which would probably be a good idea if we can reasonably do so. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 9289] [Regression 2.061] Had been deprecated language features are enabled again in default
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9289 Leandro Lucarella leandro.lucare...@sociomantic.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||leandro.lucarella@sociomant ||ic.com --- Comment #1 from Leandro Lucarella leandro.lucare...@sociomantic.com 2013-01-10 02:19:27 PST --- (In reply to comment #0) This regression is introduced by the Make deprecations as warnings the default. From my comment: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1287#issuecomment-12080557 [...] Therefore this is a huge breaking against the language improvement process in the past few years. How the default deprecation handling is changed compared to using -d in 2.060? I'm not entirely convinced is really a regression if is the same. I understand there is a problem, but I wonder if your suggested solution is really needed: To fix the problem, we need to split deprecated language features into the two. Truly deprecated features This group contains all language features which already deprecated in 2.060 and earlier. Each of them prints deprecated message without -d switch. Each of them raises an error without -d switch. (Important!!) Softly deprecated features This group will print deprecation message for the using but not make an error in default, and may contain newly deprecated features from 2.061. Each of them prints deprecated message without -d switch. Each of them raises an error without -de switch. (Important!!) Shouldn't be just plain errors the things that you don't want to allow them at all? Or are you suggesting just a migration path to the new way of presenting deprecations? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 9289] [Regression 2.061] Had been deprecated language features are enabled again in default
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9289 Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jmdavisp...@gmx.com --- Comment #3 from Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com 2013-01-10 02:37:57 PST --- I brushed up my idea: The -dw/-de switches affect to the use of deprecated symbols, but doesn't to the use of deprecated language features. That's probably the right way to handle it. Deprecated language features already effectively have the separation between soft and hard deprecation, because they generally get normal warnings before being deprecated, whereas deprecated symbols aren't part of that, since they aren't hard-coded into the compiler. We can just go back to treating deprecated language features the way that we have and take advantage of the recent changes to deprecated for deprecated symbols. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 9289] [Regression 2.061] Had been deprecated language features are enabled again in default
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9289 --- Comment #4 from Leandro Lucarella leandro.lucare...@sociomantic.com 2013-01-10 06:56:59 PST --- I still don't understand why is it a good idea to treat deprecated language features differently from deprecated symbols. Deprecated language features get a warning but you only get a warning if you use -w, which implies having warnings for lots of other stuff that have nothing to do with deprecations. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 9289] [Regression 2.061] Had been deprecated language features are enabled again in default
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9289 --- Comment #5 from Leandro Lucarella leandro.lucare...@sociomantic.com 2013-01-10 07:03:04 PST --- Well I see the second example from Kenji doesn't print any warnings, that's certainly a problem. But the first example works just fine, it compiles issuing a warning. That is what it's supposed to do, that was the original idea. Is not a bug, is a feature :) -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
