Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2016
Re: Indented here docs?
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Sawyer X
Date:
July 22, 2016 15:23
Subject:
Re: Indented here docs?
Message ID:
57923A76.1090908@gmail.com
On 07/18/2016 07:27 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Sawyer X <xsawyerx@gmail.com> [2016-07-18 13:00]:
>> On 07/18/2016 12:40 PM, Zefram wrote:
>>> Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
>>>> And it would be best to do this in one fell swoop for all of them,
>>> Agreed.
>> I'm not sure how easy this would be in practice...
> Well downgrading to “discouraged” entails no further action so it is
> trivial.
That's completely missing the point. It isn't "discouraged", it's
"deprecated" with intent to remove. When we're discussing now whether
and how to remove it, you suggest just backtracking completely on it,
marking it as "discouraged".
> And since deprecations historically had no teeth I think we should not
> just remove things that have been historically/ambiguously deprecated,
> but announce a deadline for them first, so it’s clear that their status
> is now no longer ambiguous.
>
> Then for all historical deprecations that do not get slated for removal,
> downgrading vs leaving ambiguous has identical effect, except one choice
> creates clarity and the other doesn’t.
Or we could review things and:
* If marked as deprecated but we don't want to remove it (unlike bare
<<), we move it back to "discouraged".
* If marked as deprecated and we want to remove it, add a time to this
and finally remove it.
I disagree with the idea of "Let's just move it to discouraged and
review again".
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next