Against deprecating aliases

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2011-09-29 08:36, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Thursday, September 29, 2011 08:22:41 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2011-09-28 21:56, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> Having toUTF and toUTFz is a marked improvement in many cases -
>>> especially for generic code. They're being added regardless of what the
>>> deal with toUTF16z is.
>>>
>>> The reason that toUTF16z is being removed is essentially because Andrei
>>> is very much opposed to having functions with specific types in their
>>> names and thinks that they should all be generic. Personally, I'm not
>>> opposed to keeping toUTF16z as an alias or wrapper to toUTFz. It's
>>> Andrei that seems to feel stongly about it. So, if enough people really
>>> want to keep toUTF16z, then I think that that can happen.
>>
>> Seems a bit arbitrary what gets deprecated with the old API left in
>> place and what gets deprecated with the old API removed.
>
> I'm not sure that I understand. Very little gets deprecated with the old API
> immediately removed, and _everything_ which gets deprecated will be eventually
> removed (or it wouldn't be deprecated). What are you thinking about in
> particular?

Lately if feels like when new functionally (or things were renamed) was 
added the old was just removed without keeping aliases or wrappers.

I base that on what I've read here lately, people are complaining that 
functions are just gone. But I might be wrong or I've missed something. 
Or maybe people just complaining about functions are about to be removed.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg