that's what I was saying. Wouldn't it have been better to treat it as a deprecated property with an appropriate warning, rather than as an API break with a warning instead of an error? Given that, as Valentin noted, a new property has been introduced that allows code to be compiled with the old function, what is the point of exposing it to the user if it then corresponds to an API break? If it had been treated as a deprecated property I could have simply ignored the warning. As it currently stands, however, I am forced to modify the code and have no benefit from the fact that the old code can still be compiled.
Il dom 9 feb 2025, 07:00 Dan Eble <nine.fierce.ball...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > On 2025-02-08 19:45, Paolo Prete wrote: > > This is not the case. In fact, the raised warning says: > > > > "warning: the property 'proportionalNotationDuration' must be of type > > 'non-negative exact rational or +inf.0', ignoring invalid value '#<Mom" > > > > ...while a proper warning to a deprecated function should be something > like: > > "X is deprecated and will be removed. Use Y instead" > > proportionalNotationDuration is not deprecated. Its type has been > changed, therefore the warning about not accepting a moment is correct. > -- > Dan >
