Posted by Default User on 12/21/05 01:53

Wayne wrote:

> On 20 Dec 2005 23:45:13 GMT, "Default User" <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> 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.
>
> Obviously the review has already been done on depreciated elements
> hence why they are depreciated. If there is no reason to remove them
> at all, they wouldn't be depreciated!

Deprecated. The reason elements are deprecated rather than removed
outright is to let people know and to do the evaluations that determine
when, if ever, those elements will be removed.

If you deprecate something, and no one cares, then it can be removed
quickly. On the other hand, if it will have a huge affect, then it's
smart to wait and see.


> > Conversely, if all deprecated elements are removed
> > immediately, there's also no need for the term.
>
> Agreed. Depreciated is the stage before the item is to be removed --
> to give everyone time to stop using it (and to prevent new people from
> using it). Once you've given everyone enough time to stop using it,
> you remove it. I don't see the problem here.

How much time? THAT is the question. There are some deprecated elements
in C and C++ that expect will outlive me.



Brian

[Back to original message]