Will do.  And pull requests on the actual features.

"Walter Bright" <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:jgklsi$146t$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 2/2/2012 7:46 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
>> There are a bunch of features that are planned for removal, and some that
>> are already deprecated, but no clear timeline for removal.  I'd like to
>> make
>> a comprehensive list, pick suitable durations, then I'll make a wiki page
>> for this.
>
> This should be a D spec page. I've started one here:
>
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/d-programming-language.org/blob/master/deprecate.dd
>
> Please add a pull request with the information you're gathering. This would be a great help!

On 2/4/2012 6:29 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> Will do.  And pull requests on the actual features.

Thank you. This is important.

On Friday, February 03, 2012 02:46:31 Daniel Murphy wrote:
> There are a bunch of features that are planned for removal, and some that are already deprecated, but no clear timeline for removal.  I'd like to make a comprehensive list, pick suitable durations, then I'll make a wiki page for this.
> 
> What I've got so far is...
> 
> Planned for deprecation:
> - float.min
> - complex and imaginary types
> - NCEG operators
> - array.sort and array.reverse
> - delete?
> 
> Deprecated:
> - Using length inside index expressions
> - typedef
> - variable shadowing
> - invariant as an alias for immutable
> - derefencing arrays with *
> - delete aa[key] (same as aa.remove(key))
> - .offset
> - escape string literals
> - 'l' suffix for integer literals
> - octal literals
> - 'I' suffix for imaginary literals
> - html source files
> - Type.typeinfo syntax
> - base class protection
> - c-style function and array pointers
> - if (v; e) syntax
> - volatile statements
> - non-final switch statements without defaults
> - hiding base class functions (was previously only a run-time check)
> 
> Any I've missed?  I'm thinking features should stay deprecated for around a year before being removed.

What about scope on local variables? That's supposed to be deprecated in favor of std.typecons.Scoped.

- Jonathan M Davis

I'll add it.

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote in message news:mailman.76.1328576679.20196.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> On Friday, February 03, 2012 02:46:31 Daniel Murphy wrote:
>> There are a bunch of features that are planned for removal, and some that
>> are already deprecated, but no clear timeline for removal.  I'd like to
>> make
>> a comprehensive list, pick suitable durations, then I'll make a wiki page
>> for this.
>>
>> What I've got so far is...
>>
>> Planned for deprecation:
>> - float.min
>> - complex and imaginary types
>> - NCEG operators
>> - array.sort and array.reverse
>> - delete?
>>
>> Deprecated:
>> - Using length inside index expressions
>> - typedef
>> - variable shadowing
>> - invariant as an alias for immutable
>> - derefencing arrays with *
>> - delete aa[key] (same as aa.remove(key))
>> - .offset
>> - escape string literals
>> - 'l' suffix for integer literals
>> - octal literals
>> - 'I' suffix for imaginary literals
>> - html source files
>> - Type.typeinfo syntax
>> - base class protection
>> - c-style function and array pointers
>> - if (v; e) syntax
>> - volatile statements
>> - non-final switch statements without defaults
>> - hiding base class functions (was previously only a run-time check)
>>
>> Any I've missed?  I'm thinking features should stay deprecated for around
>> a
>> year before being removed.
>
> What about scope on local variables? That's supposed to be deprecated in
> favor
> of std.typecons.Scoped.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

On 2/4/12, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> Base class protection attributes

I'm not sure what this means?

On 2012-02-08 12:04, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 2/4/12, Walter Bright<newshound2@digitalmars.com>  wrote:
>> Base class protection attributes
>
> I'm not sure what this means?

I think it's this:

class Base {}
class Foo : private Base {}

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2/8/12, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:
> I think it's this:
>
> class Base {}
> class Foo : private Base {}

Looks like you're right. Thanks.

On 2/12/12, Adam <adaprogrammer@usenet.net> wrote:
> Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>> On 2/4/12, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>> Base class protection attributes
>>
>> I'm not sure what this means?
>
> It means he hates Serbians. :p

wat