[Development] On deprecating functions

André Pönitz apoenitz at t-online.de
Tue Mar 5 00:39:56 CET 2019

On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 03:18:16PM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> 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.

That sounds reasonable, even with some restriction on the size or complexity
of a potential inline function replacement.


More information about the Development mailing list