develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from June 2013

What does "deprecated" mean? (was: [perl #118511] Use of bare <<to mean <<"" is deprecated - make a hard error)

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Peter Rabbitson
Date:
June 27, 2013 07:56
Subject:
What does "deprecated" mean? (was: [perl #118511] Use of bare <<to mean <<"" is deprecated - make a hard error)
Message ID:
20130627075636.GA25543@rabbit.us
I am taking this thread out of the RT queue.

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 09:44:02AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> On 27 June 2013 09:12, Peter Rabbitson <rabbit-p5p@rabbit.us> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 05:35:38AM +0000, Ed Avis wrote:
> >> If it's not possible to change this deprecation to a hard error (after a decade or so of warning) for fear it will break working scripts, what hope is there of the deprecation-removal cycle working for anything?
> >
> > I think what FC is pointing out is:
> >
> > IFF a feature was deprecated because if was broken OR because it needed
> > to free up syntax for something infinitely more consistent and/or useful -
> > then removal after an announced deprecation is fair game.
> >
> > However there is no ground for removal of a deprecated feature, which
> > already issues warnings to such effect (i.e. newbies will not use such
> > features mistakenly). By removing stuff solely to "honor a promise" is
> > creating work for darkpan users with the sole benefit of pleasing
> > someone aesthetically.
> >
> > A quote of the irc.perl.org#dbic-cabal topic seems relevant:
> >
> >> deprecated modules get deleted when they cause a problem and not before
> >
> > My 2c
> 
> I think you are confusing "discouraged" and "deprecated".

No I am not.

> If a feature is something that should not be used in production code
> but is allowed then its use should be discouraged in the
> documentation, and not marked as deprecated run time warning. If we
> use the term "deprecated" to mean "discouraged" then the word
> "deprecated" and the warnings it generate are meaningless and will be
> ignored, and then there is no point in having them.

We (and I mean most of the developers I run across) use the term 
"deprecated" to mean "Marked as 'will disappear at any time in the 
future, without further warnings' - do not complain when it is gone".

In other words for most of us deprecations are a way for developers to 
disclaim complaints about future demolition work. I never treat them as 
*promise* of demolition work. I suspect in your book this means I am 
ignoring deprecations by treating them thusly?

> Once a feature is marked as deprecated we should rigorously follow
> through, otherwise there is no point in having the warning at all.

The warning is there so that the end user has time to run a cost benefit 
analysis and decide when to deal with the issue - either immediately, or 
when the inevitable finally comes. You have no right to make this 
decision for others, unless you are paying for their time.

Cheers


Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About