[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] use consistent naming for allocating unsaf
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] use consistent naming for allocating unsafe SRFI-4 accessors
Sat, 25 Feb 2012 13:19:38 +0100 (CET)
>> I don't like this much. Too much effort for something non-productive.
>> I actually changed the deprecation warnings in the scrutinizer to
>> "notices" (so they are only shown with in verbose mode) - thinking
>> about your suggestion to make deprecation more verbose made me come to
>> the conclusion that it must be quite annoying for someone who perhaps
>> doesn't care (because he does not intend to update, for example).
> I think that's not a good idea; it's better to show them by default and
> perhaps add an option to suppress them. Normal usage is to follow the
> upgrade cycle, and having a user's stuff suddenly break because they
> forgot to run with the verbose option is a nuisance.
> By the way, why is it much effort? It's just a couple of lines that
> add the option, and we're usually marking stuff as deprecated in comments
It always starts with a couple of lines.
>> This reminds me painfully of the linker warnings OpenBSD produces for
>> the use of "sprintf", one of the most annoying things ever, and one
>> reason not to use OpenBSD.
> These warnings are completely valid; there aren't many ways that sprintf
> can be used safely.
Sometimes I know what I'm doing. There aren't many ways that programs
written in C can be used safely.