> On Aug 1, 2017, at 11:48 AM, Satish Balay <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 1 Aug 2017, Lisandro Dalcin wrote: > >>> Is there a convention for marking deprecation in Fortran? I don't know >>> a maintainable way to do it. >> >> Not that I know, I'm not a Fortran expert. >> >>> (Note that the present use of >>> PETSC_DEPRECATED was already a very hard sell to Barry and Matt.)
BTW: we don't seem to have a mechanism to remove functions after they have deprecated sometime deep in the past. >> >> Well, I fail to see the problem with it, implementation work is >> minimal, so I'm on your side on this one.... > > The hard part is - remembering to do it for all changes [or verifying > if some change sliped through - without appropriate deprication] > >> >>> If >>> you know of a good way to provide deprecation stubs in Fortran, we can >>> add that, but if not I think we should stick with what we've got. >> >> So, what would you recommend for deprecated functions? Try hard to >> keep them available in Fortran? Try hard to remove them from Fortran? >> Or rather do whatever is easier to implement the deprecation in C/C++? > > I don't know what we do now - but for me - if the function works in c > [in deprecated mode] - it should still work in fortran. Currently this would mean writing manual stubs for those functions as Lisandro pointed out. Kind of an annoying extra burden since before they were depreciated they likely did not require manual stubs :-( Barry > > Satish
