Le lun. 5 juil. 2021 à 13:39, Mike Schinkel <m...@newclarity.net> a écrit :
> > On Jul 5, 2021, at 7:14 AM, Rowan Tommins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On 05/07/2021 11:46, Patrick ALLAERT wrote: > >> Did we ever deprecated something without the immediate intention of > >> removing it? > > > > > > What would that even mean? > > It would mean that although the functions are available and allowed, they > are not recommended[1]. > Exactly my point. The fact that it gets deprecated with a notice gets much more visibility than just documentation changes (which I encourage anyway!). > > Surely a deprecation, by definition, is a notice that something is going > to be removed. > > I know that you, and others on this list, have chosen to define > deprecation as including removal, but that is actually not the accepted > definition on the web, nor is it in any way a requirement, it is just your > preference. > > Indirectly from Wikipedia and voted as the top answer on StackOverflow > here[2] (emphasis MINE): > > "deprecation is a status applied to software features to indicate that > they should be avoided, typically because they have been superseded. > Although deprecated features remain in the software, their use may raise > warning messages recommending alternative practices, and deprecation MAY > indicate that the feature will be removed in the future." > > So I am arguing for the legitimacy of retaining "deprecated" features if > their removal would cause significant BC breakage, I'm not just trying to > be a pendant. >
