On 6/16/2016 9:13 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> it into 7.0 is plain wrong and only creates problems. Everyone is always >> so concerned about breaking something if someone proposes some >> deprecation but in such cases nobody cares. > > Because it's not about how it's proposed, but is about what impact it > will have on users. If you try to deprecate feature that is widely used, > you'd get a lot of pushback. If you try to change something that nobody > is using and nobody should be using, you'd get little to no pushback. >
Hey! :) That does not match your usual argumentation which goes along the lines that people expect a stable language and that they will turn to other languages that are more stable if the language is not stable. We are making the language unstable. Deprecating things and offering better alternatives with a clear upgrade path is not breaking things, it is improving. We are improving something in this case but without prior notice and break stuff. Stuff we simply don't know of and cannot judge at all. I am still in favor if this change, fully and completely, as it is the right thing to do and it helps catching bugs. I am even in favor of adding more errors like this for other stuff like optional arguments before non-optional ones. However, we need to prepare our users for that (like with deprecations), inform them up front, and use the version numbers to communicate that things will be broken. Many people do not bother reading a CHANGELOG, following internals, or caring at all about the language development. Hence, the pushback always comes later but then it is too late. -- Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
