http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1449

           Summary: deprecated methods are counted as interface
                    implementation
           Product: D
           Version: 1.020
          Platform: Other
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Keywords: accepts-invalid
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: bugzilla@digitalmars.com
        ReportedBy: larsivar@igesund.net


class Foo : Bar {
    deprecated void foo() {}
}

interface Bar {
    void foo();
}

compiles cleanly with "dmd -c deprecatedtest.d"


-- 

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1449


bugzilla@digitalmars.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID




------- Comment #1 from bugzilla@digitalmars.com  2007-09-05 01:28 -------
Deprecated methods issue an error if they are called, not if they are declared.


-- 

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1449


smjg@iname.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |smjg@iname.com
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|INVALID                     |




------- Comment #2 from smjg@iname.com  2007-09-05 17:32 -------
That's completely irrelevant.  The point is that, because the implementing method is deprecated, the class effectively doesn't implement the interface it claims to.


-- 

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1449


yebblies <yebblies@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |yebblies@gmail.com
         Resolution|                            |INVALID


--- Comment #3 from yebblies <yebblies@gmail.com> 2011-06-16 04:43:29 PDT ---
This is INVALID, the compiler behaves according to spec.  Open an enhancement request if you think the compiler should do something different.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1449


bearophile_hugs@eml.cc changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |bearophile_hugs@eml.cc


--- Comment #4 from bearophile_hugs@eml.cc 2011-06-16 04:50:59 PDT ---
Please yebblies, you are doing a good work, but be generally more careful before closing issues. If Lars Ivar Igesund isn't around now (this was from 2007!) to look at this bug report he may not open an enhancement request! Creating bug report is a lot of work, they often contain important usability insights even when they are "wrong". Some times it does less harm to keep them open than to close them by mistake.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1449



--- Comment #5 from yebblies <yebblies@gmail.com> 2011-06-16 05:14:26 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Please yebblies, you are doing a good work, but be generally more careful before closing issues. If Lars Ivar Igesund isn't around now (this was from 2007!) to look at this bug report he may not open an enhancement request! Creating bug report is a lot of work, they often contain important usability insights even when they are "wrong". Some times it does less harm to keep them open than to close them by mistake.

Bugzilla is not a sanctuary for ideas.  It is a list of issues with the language to be fixed, and possible enhancements to be either incorporated into the language or rejected.

Closing a bug report that is invalid does not do harm to anything, the information is still there, the marking is accurate, and the people who might want to propose something similar as a language change are notified (the reporter is emailed, and a notification is posted to the digitalmars.D.bugs list).

I don't think anything you've said is a good reason to clutter up bugzilla by leaving an old, invalid bug report open.

That being said, I am careful about closing issues.  There is no valid bug anywhere in this report.  As far as I know this is not a commonly reported complaint nor is there any proposal that would change this behavior.  It's simply invalid.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1449



--- Comment #6 from bearophile_hugs@eml.cc 2011-06-16 05:22:13 PDT ---
> Closing a bug report that is invalid does not do harm to anything, the
information is still there,

I think that in practice you are wrong: with the amount of open bugs, a closed bugs becomes invisible.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1449



--- Comment #7 from yebblies <yebblies@gmail.com> 2011-06-16 05:39:11 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> > Closing a bug report that is invalid does not do harm to anything, the
> information is still there,
> 
> I think that in practice you are wrong: with the amount of open bugs, a closed bugs becomes invisible.

An invalid bug that is closed SHOULD be invisible.

If you think there's a valid enhancement in here, open a new bug for it.  There is no way we should be keeping invalid bugs open because somebody may have a related enhancement request that they didn't put anywhere in a bug report that they filed four years ago.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1449


Stewart Gordon <smjg@iname.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|INVALID                     |


--- Comment #8 from Stewart Gordon <smjg@iname.com> 2011-06-16 05:56:48 PDT ---
I agree with Bearophile.  Moreover, as I see it, a hole in the deprecation system constitutes a bug, just as most of us seem to agree that a hole in the const/immutable system (of which there are many) constitutes a bug.

(In reply to comment #5)
> Bugzilla is not a sanctuary for ideas.  It is a list of issues with the language to be fixed, and possible enhancements to be either incorporated into the language or rejected.

How is this not an issue with the language to be fixed?
If it isn't an issue with the language to be fixed, how is it not a possible
enhancement to be either incorporated into the language or rejected?

> That being said, I am careful about closing issues.  There is no valid bug anywhere in this report.  As far as I know this is not a commonly reported complaint

Commonness of reporting is not a criterion for the validity of a bug.

> nor is there any proposal that would change this behavior.  It's simply invalid.

No it isn't.

And even those that are invalid should, where it makes sense to do so, have their levels changed to "enhancement" rather than just closed.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1449



--- Comment #9 from yebblies <yebblies@gmail.com> 2011-06-16 06:32:51 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I agree with Bearophile.  Moreover, as I see it, a hole in the deprecation system constitutes a bug, just as most of us seem to agree that a hole in the const/immutable system (of which there are many) constitutes a bug.
> 

To quote the spec:
> It is often necessary to deprecate a feature in a library, yet retain it for
> backwards compatibility. Such declarations can be marked as deprecated, which > means that the compiler can be set to produce an error if any code refers to
> deprecated declarations

Where is the code referring to a deprecated declaration?



> (In reply to comment #5)
> > Bugzilla is not a sanctuary for ideas.  It is a list of issues with the language to be fixed, and possible enhancements to be either incorporated into the language or rejected.
> 
> How is this not an issue with the language to be fixed?

The compiler behaves as described in the spec.

> If it isn't an issue with the language to be fixed, how is it not a possible enhancement to be either incorporated into the language or rejected?

What is the requested enhancement?  Please, write one up.  There isn't one anywhere in this report.

> 
> > That being said, I am careful about closing issues.  There is no valid bug anywhere in this report.  As far as I know this is not a commonly reported complaint
> 
> Commonness of reporting is not a criterion for the validity of a bug.

No, but I find it a good metric for finding behavior that is bug prone or confusing, and might be worth considering an enhancement request for.

> 
> > nor is there any proposal that would change this behavior.  It's simply invalid.
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> And even those that are invalid should, where it makes sense to do so, have their levels changed to "enhancement" rather than just closed.

I would have done that if it made sense to do so.

The compiler works as described in the spec within the case in this report. Walter has clarified that this is intentional, and therefore not a bug.  If you think the spec and the design of D are not what they should be, that is by definition an enhancement.  So please, write one up.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------