[phobos] Why "Scheduled for deprecation?"

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Friday 14 January 2011 23:57:05 Walter Bright wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > I'm wondering what the point of marking modules as scheduled for
> > deprecation really is - at least the way that we've been doing it. I can
> > understand marking a module as scheduled for deprecation if there's a
> > planned replacement but no actual replacement yet in order to warn
> > programmers that that module will be going away. However, at present, we
> > seem to be using it to just tell programmers to use a replacement which
> > actually does exist. That being the case, why are we marking them as
> > scheduled for deprecation rather than just deprecating them? Having the
> > pragma tell people what to use instead is certainly good, but I don't
> > quite get why we've been marking modules as scheduled to be deprecated
> > when we have a clear replacement for them and are telling programmers to
> > use the replacement. Why aren't we actually deprecating them and then
> > just using the pragma to indicate which module to use instead?
> 
> Because it allows users to update their code on their own schedule,
> rather than ours. It's very annoying to have your builds break for
> reason X when you are hard at work developing Y.

True, but isn't that what -d is for?

- Jonathan M Davis