Re: Obsolete functions and variables

["Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>]

Nick Roberts wrote:
>  > >>  I guess the dangers generally outweigh the advantages but there's not
>  > >>  much point in marking them obsolete if they're never going to be
>  > >>  removed.
>  > > 
>  > > I agree. I just don't expect it to happen.
>  > 
>  > 
>  > I am not sure I agree. Are not a function sometimes marked as obsolete 
>  > because there is a new better version that works in more cases? The old 
>  > obsolete function may still work in many cases.
> 
>   Obsolete \Ob"so*lete\, a. [L. obsoletus, p. p. of obsolescere.
>      See {Obsolescent}.]
>      1. No longer in use; gone into disuse; disused; neglected;
> 
> Hmm, this is starting to sound like Monty Python's dead parrot sketch!

I am glad we are creative.

>  > Maybe a more visible warning when obsolete things are found would be 
>  > good? (Using for example lwarn.)
> 
> How would this work?  Not in some hand wavy way but with a real code
> explanation.

Do you mean it is difficult to do this? After looking at the code I 
might think it is. I thought that eval warned about obsolete functions 
but it does not. I do not think eval cares about "obsolete-ness". It is 
the bytecompiler that does it and the warnings given by the byte 
compiler are rather visible, but they does not explain very much.

Maybe a comment at the end of the compilation log could tell people to 
remove the use of obsolete things?