> On 26 Mar 2015, at 15:12, Luc Fabresse <luc.fabre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2015-03-26 12:04 GMT+01:00 Sean P. DeNigris <s...@clipperadams.com
> <mailto:s...@clipperadams.com>>:
> Marcus Denker-4 wrote
> > It was in the “private” category and as such removed when there where no
> > senders anymore after a
> > cleanup.
>
> Ahh, I like that practice!
>
> I was thinking that the deprecation pragma should be used (to warn users) and
> a lint rule added (to help users preparing migration) and then the method
> can be safely removed in the next version.
> I know that it is fastidious to do so perhaps it is an idea to improve tools
> on that front.
>
The problem is that it is hard to do when the code changes a lot. e.g. maybe
the method even makes no sense conceptually anymore? Private methods
are about private implementation details…. keeping a system working with
deprecation for private methods I think is near impossible.
Marcus
