[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Depreciated Functions
From: |
John W. Eaton |
Subject: |
Re: Depreciated Functions |
Date: |
Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:26:33 -0500 |
On 20-Jan-2006, Geordie McBain wrote:
| Yes, but spell it `deprecated'.
|
| On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 22:28 -0500, Bill Denney wrote:
| > I'm thinking of adding a warning to all the depreciated functions of the
| > form
| >
| > depfxn: depfxn is depreciated, please use newfxn instead.
| >
| > Where depfxn is the depreciated function name and newfxn is the replacing
| > function name. Would that be a fix that people want?
Also, please use the new warning identifier syntax so people can
easily turn off this class of warnings. For example,
warning ("octave:deprecated",
"depfxn: depfxn is deprecated, please use newfxn instead");
There is no need to end the warning with a period.
Since all these warnings will be the same except for the names of the
functions, perhaps we should introduce a new function to shorten this
to
__warn_deprecated__ ("depfxn", "newfxn");
Thanks,
jwe