From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Declaring cl.el obsolete Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 12:22:30 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83a7fd7p5k.fsf@gnu.org> <831s0p6ym9.fsf@gnu.org> <83woif51y8.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="217745"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 24 18:27:19 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hUD2M-000uXG-Mq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 24 May 2019 18:27:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57289 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hUD2L-0001IC-HY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 24 May 2019 12:27:17 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:43061) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hUCxr-0005H4-6W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 May 2019 12:22:40 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hUCxq-0005NQ-9z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 May 2019 12:22:39 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=53594 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hUCxq-0005M5-2k for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 May 2019 12:22:38 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hUCxn-000oTU-Us for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 May 2019 18:22:35 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Cancel-Lock: sha1:oDkULE2BiioyrHa4bIivsSUCOyQ= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:236965 Archived-At: >> IOW exactly what you say we should do "first", except maybe that we use >> the term "obsoleted" instead of "deprecated". So is the specific word >> the source of your doubt? > Yes. Then let's deprecate it instead of obsolete it (with a corresponding warning when you use it). I personally don't care about the difference. Stefan PS: But I'm curious why you explain why you'd prefer "deprecate" over "obsolete"? We usually don't really distinguish between the two, AFAICT, since we almost never deprecate something unless it has a replacement which causes it to be obsolete. In this case, the reason why we'd deprecate it is because there are alternatives we prefer, so in this sens it's "obsolete". Also we have infrastructure to say something is obsolete in a "formal" way which causes corresponding messages to be emitted when applicable, whereas we don't have such an infrastructure for "deprecated".