Steven Schveighoffer Posted in reply to xenon325



Permalink Reply

On 3/29/16 11:08 PM, xenon325 wrote: > On Tuesday, 29 March 2016 at 15:25:27 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: >> I anticipate 2.071.0 is going to cause a lot of deprecation messages >> and strange errors to occur, due to the fixes of very long-standing >> import bugs. >> >> I wrote a blog post (actually my first ever) on this, let me know what >> you think (and please, any clarifications/errors, let me know): >> >> http:// www.schv eiguy.com/ blog/ 2016/03/ import- changes- in-d-2-071/ I anticipate 2.071.0 is going to cause a lot of deprecation messagesand strange errors to occur, due to the fixes of very long-standingimport bugs.I wrote a blog post (actually my first ever) on this, let me know whatyou think (and please, any clarifications/errors, let me know): > > 1. >> In addition, importing a module using static, renamed, or selective >> imports, then the module was imported publicly, even though it was >> supposed to be private. > > Not an English speaker, but this doesn't sound right (at least > stylistically). > Reread it several times, but I couldn't get the meaning of the sentence, > until opened bug report. > On Tuesday, 29 March 2016 at 15:25:27 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:1.Not an English speaker, but this doesn't sound right (at leaststylistically).Reread it several times, but I couldn't get the meaning of the sentence,until opened bug report. > 2. >> With 2.070.2 and prior versions, compiling this works just fine. With >> 2.071.0 and above, you will get either a deprecation warning, or an >> error. > >> With 2.070.2, this compiled just fine. [...] With 2.071.0 and above, >> this will trigger a deprecation warning. In the future, the code will >> trigger an error. > >> In 2.070.2, this produces no warning or error. In 2.071.0 and beyond, >> this will produce a deprecation warning, and eventually an error. > > Not sure if it's worth it to repeat after each example. Feels redundant. I think it's important to state the previous and new behavior, even though it's always the same. It does sound redundant, but makes it easier to understand. > > 3. I think it's OK to write just major compiler versions, no need for > patch version: 2.070 and 2.071 Yes, I did that. Thanks for the feedback. -Steve