<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><span></span></div><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div><span></span></div><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div><span></span></div><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div>One potential pitfall of auto-disabling the warning for various scopes, especially the file one, is that one can by mistake add a new unintended reference. Even though it require extra change when deprecating, should there be instead a way to tag the "authorized" use.</div><div><br></div><div>@useDeprecated(self.phoneNumber) = phoneNumber</div><div><br></div><div>Not sure if something like that is possible, though it could make the code ugly, and may goes against the unwritten rule that some have: do not alter the deprecated code section itself. Maybe a similar marker for the function itself:</div><div><br></div><div>@usingDeprecated(Phone.phoneNumber)</div><div>@available(*, deprecated, ...)</div><div>public convenience init( ... ) { ... }</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Dany</div><div><br></div><div>Le 5 mai 2017 à 18:15, Tony Allevato via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> a écrit :<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">I'm inclined to agree. I'm not opposed outright to that degree of configurability but at the same time I wonder if the complexity is needed—it feels like it's getting close to the "fine-tuned auditing" that I argued against during the discussions about access control.<div><br></div><div>It could also be done additively later, if a significant amount of people using the feature found that they did need it.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 3:09 PM BJ Homer <<a href="mailto:bjhomer@gmail.com">bjhomer@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
> On May 5, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Xiaodi Wu <<a href="mailto:xiaodi.wu@gmail.com" target="_blank">xiaodi.wu@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Why guess as to which of these is appropriate? Couldn't you support the current and all variants of this behavior by allowing access modifiers on 'deprecated'?<br>
><br>
> * public deprecated: warning when used from a different module, behaves as though there's a public deprecated pass-through<br>
><br>
> * internal deprecated: warning when used from a different file<br>
><br>
> * fileprivate deprecated: warning when used from a different scope<br>
><br>
> * private deprecated: synonymous with deprecated for backwards compatibility, behaves like it does today<br>
><br>
> (No need for complicated parsing; SE-25 allows a higher nominal access modifier inside a lower one without warning, so it's fine to allow 'public deprecated' to decorate a private member with no effect.)<br>
<br>
I’m not opposed to more configurability like that. I worry it makes the feature more complicated and potentially delays the acceptance or implementation of this feature, though. If it’s easy to implement, though, then sure, I like that.<br>
<br>
-BJ</blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>swift-evolution mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a></span><br></div></blockquote></div></div></div></body></html>