Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden
> schrieb am Fr., 29. Sep. 2017 um 09:51 Uhr:
> From: Noam Postavsky <address@hidden>
> Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 13:43:20 -0400
> Cc: Michael Heerdegen <address@hidden>, address@hidden
> Philipp Stephani <address@hidden> writes:
> > Noam Postavsky <address@hidden> schrieb am So., 24.
> > Sep. 2017 um 17:44 Uhr:
> > Philipp Stephani <address@hidden> writes:
> > > * lisp/emacs-lisp/gv.el (buffer-local-value): Remove.
> > Is it possible to just give an obsolete warning first?
> > I don't think it's possible in the sense of `make-obsolete' because
> > the expander is not a named function.
> > It would be possible to use `display-warning' within the body of the
> > setter, but that would only annoy users.
> > If necessary, we might add additional code to the `setf' macro to
> > warn about this form in particular during byte compilation.
> IMO, a compilation warning would be appropriate.
I agree. Removing some feature without due warning is not something
we should do, except in very rare cases (which this one isn't).
I fully agree, but I don't know how to correctly deprecate a generalized variable. Should I add code to the byte compiler to deal with this case explicitly?