[Development] On deprecating functions

Thiago Macieira thiago.macieira at intel.com
Tue Mar 5 00:18:16 CET 2019


On Monday, 4 March 2019 13:27:42 PST André Pönitz wrote:
> Truly personally, I'd even go for
> "no deprecation at all *for purely cosmetical reasons*" as I've seen
> too many taking route

That's a good point. Often we deprecate things because we had a misspelling or 
failed to take our own naming convention into account. So maybe what we need 
is a two-level warning system: one for bad things that you really should be 
doing differently and one for cosmetic things.

Definition of cosmetic: a typedef or a function that will be inline in 6.0.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel System Software Products





More information about the Development mailing list