RE: `looking-back' strange warning

[Drew Adams]

> > That's what a deprecation notice is for.  It is not what
> > warnings are for.  And certainly not a self-proclaimed
> > "warning" that incorrectly and nonsensically states that
> > "2-3" arguments are required when only 1 is required.
> 
> I'm glad those little annoyances keep you entertained.

Please reread the Subject line.  Someone else, not I, was
apparently annoyed or puzzled enough to ask what this
incomprehensible "warning" is all about.

It may be "little" to you, but it was important or confusing
enough for someone to ask here for help about it.  That's not
something to belittle or sneer at.

But no one asked what the corresponding deprecation notice
means.  That notice is clear enough.

If you feel that a byte-compiler message can also help
here, please consider just saying that not using LIMIT is 
deprecated.  That's all.  (Just a suggestion.)