On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 03:32:16AM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Saturday, April 16, 2016 22:04:46 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 05:23:26PM +0000, Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d > wrote: > > > Before I opened a PR, I wanted to get some second opinions. > > > > > > There is no reason IMO that the various overloads of toImpl should > > > be public. Having the internal functionality of a parent function, > > > in this case to, be exposed like this causes: > > > > > > 1. The docs to be cluttered with useless info. Anything pertinent > > > can be moved to the to docs. > > > 2. The function cannot be refactored because its guts are shown to > > > the world > > > > > > Also, there is no reason that anyone should use toImpl over to. So > > > can I please mark toImpl as deprecated in order to clean up > > > std.conv? > > > > I'm pretty sure that toImpl being public is an oversight. The name > > itself implies that it should be private. I seriously doubt any > > user code actually calls toImpl directly... shouldn't it be just a > > matter of marking it private instead? Do we really need to go > > through a deprecation cycle for this? > > toImpl has the documentation for all of the specific conversions. So, > you can't make it private or that documentation would go away. [...]
Easy, just move that documentation to the docs for `to`. It's probably better that way anyway, as exemplified by this very thread where somebody already expressed confusion over using toImpl with a conversion base vs. using to with a conversion base, where the latter is probably the original intended usage. T -- I think the conspiracy theorists are out to get us...