Re: And another deprecation joke

[Noah Lavine]

Hello,

> This, however, is a lie, since there is no place above where "vectag"
> would be explained.  There is an explanation about how it will be
> printed as part of an array, but not how it is specified.
>
> Would it please be possible
>
> a) to not just deprecate some function when there are _callers_ in the
>   guile code base that are _not_ explicitly deprecated
> b) make sure that the recommended replacements are actually
>   _documented_?
>
> This is not the first such "deprecation" I have encountered, and it
> shows a blatant disrespect of the user base.

Yes, I am well aware that the Guile documentation is missing some
pieces. I didn't know about the deprecation issue, but it fits.

If it makes you feel better though, I suspect that both of these
problems began before the current maintainers took over. As long as I
have been watching the mailing list, Andy and Ludo have been extremely
thorough, and I do not think they would have done something like this.

What you are noticing now is that Guile has some old bits of code that
were not implemented up to the standards we currently have. Since you
seem to be using all the weird corners of Guile, you have the
un-enviable job of going through and finding all of these places so we
can fix them.

I'm not going to solve this problem, because I don't know how, but I
did want to say that I appreciate you finding these things. It is not
a fun job, but it should be done.

Thanks,
Noah