|
|
Posted by Default User on 12/21/05 01:45
Oli Filth wrote:
> Default User said the following on 20/12/2005 22:36:
> > Wayne wrote:
> >
> >
> > > "Removing deprecated or duplicated functions may sound like a good
> > > idea, but if any of those functions are still widely used then
> > > they should be left alone."
> > >
> > > Deprecated
> > > (adj.) Used typically in reference to a computer language to mean
> > > a command or statement in the language that is going to be made
> > > invalid or obsolete in future versions.
> > >
> > > BY DEFINITION Deprecated functions should be removed
> >
> >
> > I disagree with this. As deprecated elements may be removed, no new
> > code should be written that uses them. However, if removal of the
> > deprecated construct will cause significant breakage of existing
> > code, then an overriding reason should be present for immediate
> > removal.
> >
>
> But by that argument, deprecated features would never ever get
> removed, and so rendering the term "deprecated" redundant.
How do you figure? There has be a review of the benefits versus
detriments. Conversely, if all deprecated elements are removed
immediately, there's also no need for the term.
Brian
--
Please quote enough of the previous message for context. To do so from
Google, click "show options" and use the Reply shown in the expanded
header.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|