Hi Greg, On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Greg Hellings <greg.helli...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Ben Morgan <benpmor...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Greg, >> >> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Greg Hellings >> <greg.helli...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> SWIG bindings now up-to-date. >>> >>> Bindings users, please holler if I removed things overzealously. >>> >>> I haven't tried it, but I believe that this will break BPBible for >> example. >> >> As the bindings are part of SWORD, I believe it makes sense to mirror the >> deprecations in the bindings somehow if possible, rather than ignoring the >> deprecated definitions. >> I know that's what e.g. wxPython does, but I'm not sure how it does it. >> > > I can't see any way of marking the methods as deprecated using SWIG. A > Google search has turned up no such evidence that it is even possible. > While I would like to mark them as deprecated, I think it is more proper > for there to be no such warnings coming from building the engine. I think > it would just smack as an issue with building if the engine produced > warnings that it uses its own deprecation warnings! > Can you not just make deprecations.i be conditionally included based on some kind of "include deprecated methods" compilation variable? That way it is still user choice, but to me it feels wrong to have methods available in C++ but not bindings. Jon
_______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
