Re: Should OCTAVE_DEPRECATED macro also apply OCTAVE_UNUSED?

[Rik]

On 11/02/2018 11:36 AM, John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 11/02/2018 02:10 PM, Rik wrote:
>> 11/2/18
>>
>> I checked in a changeset to deprecate the C++ function is_hghandle in favor
>> of ishghandle (https://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/fbc23950b00a).
>> Where possible, it is better to have the C++ function names match the
>> Octave language functions so that programmers who are unfamiliar with the
>> core C++ code can, nevertheless, follow what the code is doing.
>>
>> However, I'm now getting compilation messages that deprecated functions are
>> unused.  This hasn't been a problem before because the use of the
>> OCTAVE_DEPRECATED macro has been in .h header files, but the most recent
>> change takes place in a .cc file.
>>
>> One possible solution is to have the OCTAVE_DEPRECATED macro also set the
>> attribute for unused.  Or, programmers could specifically add the
>> OCTAVE_UNUSED decoration to the function as well.  This works, but to my
>> eye seems long and klunky.  But, we also shouldn't care too much since this
>> code will be deleted within two versions of Octave.
>>
>> OCTAVE_UNUSED OCTAVE_DEPRECATED (5.0, "use 'ishghandle' instead")
>>
>> Does anyone else have an opinion on which path to take?
>
> There's no need to mark a static function as deprecated since its scope
> is only inside the file where it is defined.  So you can simply remove it
> if it is no longer needed.

Good point.  I removed the unnecessary functions.

--Rik