On Monday, 3 July 2017 at 16:08:43 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Monday, 3 July 2017 at 13:14:02 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
So, in general, I think that it's a big mistake to keep
deprecated stuff along on a permanent or semi-permanent basis.
Keeping it around for about two years like we do now is
already quite a long time in that regard. As long as the
symbol doesn't require any maintenance, then it's not a big
deal, but too often, _some_ maintenance does end up being
required.
For Phobos, changing the name would be less about keeping the
function around for a long time than about offering an easy fix
once the code does break. The current approach to deprecations
is that you get a warning that at some point the function might
be removed, then you update the compiler and you have broken
code without an obvious fix. A broken build gets your
attention, but you have a short-term fix. The total length of
the deprecation cycle wouldn't have to change.
I don't get it: how is linking old and unmaintained code "fixing"
anything? Dead code is dead, if it's been two years already let
it die and fix your own, anything else can't be future-proof.
