> > But isn't the intent to make it an error later? So I assume we're > > debating making it an error, not just a warning. > > Yes, that's correct. > But if we have a longish deprecation period (i.e. where there's > only a warning) all important code should have been adapted > before it turns to an error
That might be true for continuously-used code. But for old scripts for analysing some dataset that someone decides to run again five years from now, they will be reduced to trying to guess which version of R they ran under originally, or if they now want to use newer features, to doing a binary search for the most recent version of R for which they still work, or of course going through the script trying to find the problem. This wouldn't be a disaster, but I'm not seeing the magnitude of benefit that would justify imposing this burden on users. A language specification shouldn't really be changing all the time for no particular reason. Radford Neal ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
