Hi julian

The idea of the notification the way it is is to really warns the 
people in annoying manner.
Now do not tell us that you cannot simply just change the method into 
Object, to do what you want
:)

By the way doug if you change the name of the method I was thinking 
that deprecated is better than deprecation :)

On Mardi, sep 16, 2003, at 18:53 Europe/Zurich, Julian Fitzell wrote:

> Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
>> I used the SM version of the Refactoring Browser for all my 
>> development,
>> at whatever is the alpha version. It currently uses deprecated methods
>> (which can be proceeded, or patched individually, and might be fixed
>> soon collectively).
>
> Ugh... speaking of which... it seems to me that a deprecated method 
> isn't really deprecated if it pops up a dialog and halts processing; 
> it might as well be removed.  It's not much better than getting a DNU 
> really (well, ok, you get a more descriptive error and you *can* 
> continue).

EXACT!

> But couldn't we have it just output a message to the Transcript that 
> the message is deprecated and then continue normally? It seems to me 
> that the point of deprecation is that software continues to work 
> during a period of time where the developer can find the deprecations 
> and change them.
>
> The current situation doesn't really seem to leave software using the 
> deprecated methods in a "usable" state.

Ugh???

> Perhaps this would even be worthy of one tiny last change to 3.6 
> before final?  Or perhaps I'm the only one who sees it this way...

At least I'm not and the guy that proposed the mechanism that way too.

>
> Julian
>
>
> -- 
> julian at beta4.com
> Beta4 Productions (http://www.beta4.com)
>
>
>