Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2013
On 27 June 2013 12:31, Peter Rabbitson <rabbit-p5p@rabbit.us> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:26:16PM +0200, demerphq wrote: >> >> What you are suggesting is that we can only remove deprecated features >> when you and some group of unnamed individuals have approved the >> reason for removal. > > I never made such a claim. Please reread my parts of the thread and try > to see my message for what it is. No you did. You said people have a right to complain if we remove a deprecated feature without a technical reason. Since we only mark things as deprecated for a reason what you are essentially arguing is that the complainers get final decision on whether the reason is good enough. >> I dont think that flies. > > I don't think so either ;) > >> Any such issues should be raised when the features is proposed for >> deprecation. If the pumpking, who has final decision on the matter, >> decides the item is deprecated then that should be sufficient. > > Agreed (nor ever contested) So then how come you said people have a right to complain when we do what the pumpking said we [cs]hould? >> Frankly if I encountered a sufficiently long deprecated feature in >> part of the code I tend to work on and it got in my way in the >> slightest bit I would chainsaw it without question or even discussion, >> and would not expect any come back on it. > > Precisely! The whole point is that this is not the case wrt <<"". > > Thanks for loudly agreeing with me ;) Well, just for the record, I dont think I am. For me simply wanting to clean up the documentation for here docs would be sufficient justification to remove the deprecated feature. Indeed, simply wanting to whittle down the list of deprecated features would be. cheers, Yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"Thread Previous | Thread Next