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

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

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Peter Rabbitson
June 27, 2013 11:39
Re: What does "deprecated" mean? (was: [perl #118511] Use of bare<< to mean <<"" is deprecated - make a hard error)
Message ID:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 01:26:29PM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> On 27 June 2013 13:08, Peter Rabbitson <> wrote:
> > I omitted a bunch of text where you keep claiming I said things I never
> > said (and Nicholas seemed to understand what I meant from the get-go)
> Dude, read your mails. You said:
> "An end user could very well complain that a feature was gone without a
> technical reason (see below)."

Correct - they have the right to complain.

> "I still fail to see the urge to break something without a clear
> technical need."

Correct - I fail to see it.

> You use "technical" as a metric to decide if someone has a worthy
> reason to remove something. I posit that *any* deprecation is due to
> technical reasons and as such the only way that your position makes
> sense is to read it as implying that you get to decide if the reason
> is technical enough.

You keep conflating "deprecated" with "gone". The whole point I am 
trying to raise is that this is ridiculous.

Consider my terminology:

* Deprecated => may disappear down the road, warns loudly, but still there
* Gone => compile time error

The transition between *these two states* is what I think we should 
require a technical reason for.

"I want to have a shorter list of deprecated stuff" is *NOT* a technical 
reason. It is a moronic reason.

> Which IMO doesnt fly. The time to make arguments
> like that is when the feature is deprecated. Not when random developer
> decides to use their volunteer tuits to remove something we said they
> could remove. I would be really pissed if some developer decided to
> contribute their time and remove a bunch of deprecated features and
> you whined that there wasnt a good enough reason.

If someone (you or a new developer) decides to spend his tuits to 
"shorten the deprecation list" - yes I will "whine". And until rjbs says 
otherwise I damn well will continue to do so.

> I dont want developers to be discouraged doing what we already told 
> them they could do. (As in been there, done that, it wasn't fun, and 
> I'd like to make sure it doesnt happen to other people.)

Could you expand what incident are you referring to?

> Now, if you want to join FC in arguing that a feature should be
> *un*deprecated that is fine, go ahead.

The pumpking has spoken on *that* issue[1], there is nothing to argue 

> But that is an entirely different argument to you having the right to 
> complain if I remove something we all have already agreed can and 
> should be removed.

Correct - we are having this other argument now. The pumpking has not 
ruled on *this* argument.



Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About