Deprecation process documented?

H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn at puremagic.com
Tue Feb 24 10:05:21 PST 2015


On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 09:55:28AM -0800, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[...]
> Regardless, when a symbol is either marked as "scheduled for
> deprecation" in the docs or outright deprecated, a date is usually put
> in the docs for when it will be moved to the next deprecation stage,
> though in the case of "scheduled for deprecation," there's a decent
> chance that it'll be marked with the next release number rather than a
> date, since the idea there is to give folks a release of leeway so
> that they can avoid deprecation messages when building with master
> rather than give them a particular period of time to change their code
> before the symbol goes away, as is the case with symbols that are
> actually deprecated.
[...]

What about Walter's recent complaint that certain old symbols have gone
away and no upgrade path was presented to the user, just an inscrutible
error message? I thought the consensus from that discussion was to leave
deprecated symbols undocumented but still defined (even if it's just a
no-op stub with a deprecation message or static assert pointing the user
to the new symbol(s)).


T

-- 
Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.


More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn mailing list