Deprecations: Any reason left for warning stage?

[David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d]

As Walter mentioned in a recent pull request discussion [1], the 
first formal deprecation protocol we came up with for language 
changes looked something like this:

1. remove from documentation
2. warning
3. deprecation
4. error

(The "remove from documentation" step is a bit questionable, but 
that's not my point here.)

However, in the meantime deprecations were changed to be 
informational by default. You now need to explicitly need to pass 
-de to turn them into errors that halt compilation. Thus, I think 
we should simply get rid of the warning step, just like we (de 
facto) eliminated the "scheduled for deprecation" stage from the 
Phobos process.

Thoughts?

Best,
David


[1] 
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/4021#issuecomment-56758916