From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gregory Heytings via "Emacs development discussions." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Delete variables obsolete since Emacs 23 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 08:31:55 +0000 Message-ID: References: <83r1s4ftc7.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org, Gregory Heytings Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="34064"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (NEB 202 2017-01-01) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 19 10:33:06 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1k8JWs-0008la-Cj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 10:33:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35426 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k8JWr-0000BU-CK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 04:33:05 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60440) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k8JVv-0007mZ-2c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 04:32:07 -0400 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.24]:63855) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k8JVs-0002PS-BC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 04:32:06 -0400 Original-Received: from sdf.org (IDENT:ghe@faeroes.freeshell.org [205.166.94.9]) by mx.sdf.org (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPS id 07J8VxfY017855 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Wed, 19 Aug 2020 08:31:59 GMT Original-Received: (from ghe@localhost) by sdf.org (8.15.2/8.12.8/Submit) id 07J8VwNL019603; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 08:31:58 GMT In-Reply-To: <83r1s4ftc7.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=205.166.94.24; envelope-from=ghe@sdf.org; helo=mx.sdf.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/08/19 02:47:18 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = ??? X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:253990 Archived-At: >>> The elisp manual says: >>> >>> You can mark a named function as "obsolete", meaning that it may be >>> removed at some point in the future. This causes Emacs to warn that >>> the function is obsolete whenever it byte-compiles code containing >>> that function, and whenever it displays the documentation for that >>> function. In all other respects, an obsolete function behaves like any >>> other function. >> >> The phrase "may be removed" seems a bit vague. Would "will be removed" >> or "will probably be removed" be more accurate? > > No, it won't. Primarily because we don't really know whether we will > remove it, let alone when. It depends on too many factors that we > cannot predict. > In that case, would a two-step process not be better? First declaring the function "obsolete", and when it is known that it will be removed declare it "pending-removal" with a target major version. Gregory