On Sunday, October 12, 2014 21:17:29 Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > This has been being brought up for years. I wouldn't expect 6 > > months to change > > anything. If we want to delay it until dmd's headergen and ddoc > > are fixed and > > put a note in the changelog on the next release that it's going > > to be > > deprecated rather than deprecating it immediately, we can do > > that, but I don't > > think for a second that the arguments are going to change. > > Automatic code rewriting is what might make syntax deprecations > more feasible in 6 month.
Perhaps, but this change is so straightforward that I would expect that even a very large codebase could be updated in a very short space of time. And since it'll be generating deprecation messages - not errors - and it's for a practice that we've already been discouraging for some time now, I don't think that waiting for dfix buys us much. I totally agree that it would be nice to have, but I don't see it as a showstopper at all. The only significant problem I see is dmd's headergen, because if that's putting const on the left, then it'll generate code that will then be warned about, which would definitely be bad. The ddoc generation should be fixed to, but that can be done later, because the semantics won't have changed; it's just that if you do it in your own code, you'll get a deprecation message. I'd very much like to see this change made sooner rather than later. I think that it continues to harm us as long as it isn't changed, and the change really doesn't cost much even if your whole codebase needs to be updated, because it's very simple and straightforward. - Jonathan M Davis
