|
From: | Lennart Borgman (gmail) |
Subject: | Re: Obsolete functions and variables |
Date: | Fri, 11 Apr 2008 02:21:26 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 |
Nick Roberts wrote:
> >> I guess the dangers generally outweigh the advantages but there's not > >> much point in marking them obsolete if they're never going to be > >> removed.> > > > I agree. I just don't expect it to happen. > > > I am not sure I agree. Are not a function sometimes marked as obsolete > because there is a new better version that works in more cases? The old > obsolete function may still work in many cases.Obsolete \Ob"so*lete\, a. [L. obsoletus, p. p. of obsolescere. See {Obsolescent}.] 1. No longer in use; gone into disuse; disused; neglected; Hmm, this is starting to sound like Monty Python's dead parrot sketch!
I am glad we are creative.
> Maybe a more visible warning when obsolete things are found would be > good? (Using for example lwarn.)How would this work? Not in some hand wavy way but with a real code explanation.
Do you mean it is difficult to do this? After looking at the code I might think it is. I thought that eval warned about obsolete functions but it does not. I do not think eval cares about "obsolete-ness". It is the bytecompiler that does it and the warnings given by the byte compiler are rather visible, but they does not explain very much.
Maybe a comment at the end of the compilation log could tell people to remove the use of obsolete things?
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |