On 4/24/2015 12:22 AM, Martin Nowak wrote:
On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 02:09:06 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 4/23/2015 6:26 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I agree it should have been done, not saying it's OK to break the process in
some cases. I'm just explaining why it probably happened the way it did.
Yes, it should have been done. We screwed up.
It's time that we agree on/document an official deprecation approach and
rigorously enforce it, making as few exceptions as possible.
I thought we had one:
1. warning
2. deprecation
3. error
4. removal
