Keep deprecated methods for one or two versions? (was Re: Aboutdeprecated methods)

ducasse ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Sat Sep 13 07:48:24 UTC 2003


>
>
> By "Me too" I assume you'd vote to wait two versions?
I was stupid I meant that even if raise the topic I would not mind 
removing the deprecated method after each version.

> How do others feel about this?  I still slightly favor waiting just 
> one version, but if most folks think we should wait two versions, we 
> could do that.
>
>> In fact I would favor to remove them all and create a package with 
>> them so that people can still load it for documentation purpose.
>
>
> That might be a good idea.  I'd be willing to do that myself if we 
> decide to keep deprecated methods for just one version.  If we keep 
> them for two versions, I personally wouldn't bother to save them in a 
> package, but someone else could do that if they wanted.

Exact

>>> Speaking of deprecated methods, someone mentioned awhile ago that 
>>> they thought the deprecation method should be renamed from 
>>> #deprecatedExplanation: to just #deprecated:.  I think this would be 
>>> a good idea.
>>
>> if someone wants no problem with us. But this will break our pending 
>> changes :) but someone can do it.
>> Now two methods for deprecation MUST be there one for ordinary 
>> methods and one with a block as parameter for primitives because we 
>> cannot insert in the method body before the primitive tag a 
>> deprecation statement.
>> In the next batch of changes I have move around primitives and you 
>> will see some examples of the second methods.
>
>
> Okay, we could do this then.  I could wait until your changes are 
> incorporated before changing #deprecatedExplanation: to #deprecated, 
> or I could update your changesets to use #deprecated: as I incorporate 
> them, to make it easier for you.
>
> Also, we should probably change the other method with the block 
> parameter to be consistent with the simple one, so that the 
> explanation is always the first parameter and then extra parameters 
> follow.  Maybe change it to #deprecated:block:, or something like > that.

Perfect for us. So may be we should ask daniel to go over the KCP items 
left really soon. I will have more time in the near future and I want 
to continue cleaning systemDictionary :) I have nearly extracted 
SqueakImage from it.
Daniel :) ??


> - Doug
>
>
>



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list