[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Obsoleting more progressively
From: |
Lennart Borgman |
Subject: |
Re: Obsoleting more progressively |
Date: |
Tue, 2 Nov 2010 17:13:21 +0100 |
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote:
> `make-obsolete' and friends are very useful to let us get rid of old
> features, but even after 10 years of something being declared obsolete,
> experience shows it's still in use "out there".
> So I'd like to be able to make things "more obsolete" (i.e. create
> a second level of obsolescence) before we actually remove them.
>
> I can think of 2 ways to do implement that second level of obsolescence:
> - Add warnings at runtime when obsolete stuff is used.
> for functions, commands and macros, make-obsolete that's reasonably
> easy to do; for variables it's more difficult.
> For hooks, we could let add-hook check the obsolescence property and
> emit a warning, and similarly for a few difference cases, but for
> the primitive get&set operations, this is not an option.
> - Actually remove the function/variable from the non-released code.
> I.e. remove/deactivate the functions/variables from trunk during
> development but put them back in when we start pretesting.
Actually removing them during development seems to create less trouble to me.
- Obsoleting more progressively, Stefan Monnier, 2010/11/02
- Re: Obsoleting more progressively,
Lennart Borgman <=
- Obsoleting more progressively, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2010/11/02
- RE: Obsoleting more progressively, Drew Adams, 2010/11/02
- Re: Obsoleting more progressively, jasonr, 2010/11/02
- Re: Obsoleting more progressively, CHENG Gao, 2010/11/02
- Re: Obsoleting more progressively, Andreas Röhler, 2010/11/03
- Re: Obsoleting more progressively, Glenn Morris, 2010/11/03