[Issue 11949] Warning and later deprecation message for usage of delete

[d-bugmail at puremagic.com]

https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11949


Stanislav Blinov <stanislav.blinov at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |stanislav.blinov at gmail.com


--- Comment #2 from Stanislav Blinov <stanislav.blinov at gmail.com> 2014-01-19 05:37:47 PST ---
I'm with bearophile on this. If something goes away, let it go away. I may not
be an active member of D community, but I am interested in writing software in
D. This "ought to be deprecated but isn't, and what's the replacement?.." thing
shouldn't last, it only brings confusion.

Phobos has to be improved, libraries have to be written, software has to be
written. How to do this reliably when there's no clarity on which language
features should and shouldn't be used? 

This situation with delete. delete? destroy? clear? eradicate? Even now in
Phobos one can find both delete and destroy being used. Adding any new module
makes the "future" deprecation that much harder (and new modules are being
reviewed even now).

By not forcing the issue now, we're effectively introducing problems that would
come up "in the near future". Or we'd end up with Phobos and other libraries
cluttered with version blocks a-la C++'s glorified ifdef bundles that manage
"deficincies" of various implementations.

I was watching last year's DConf recently. And Andrei Alexandrescu presented a
good case of required quality. Quality does not couple well with such
ambiguities.

-- 
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------