[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D62428: [libcxx] Slightly improved policy for handling experimental features

Fri May 31 08:46:33 PDT 2019

mclow.lists added a comment.

In D62428#1519664 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62428#1519664>, @jfb wrote:

> In D62428#1518488 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62428#1518488>, @mclow.lists wrote:
>
> > The deletions are fine, the doc updates are good, but I think deprecation warnings are not.
> >  Things that are going to happen in the future (a year from now, say) or never (if people don't update their tools) don't belong in the warning spew for **every single build**
>
>
> Similar deprecation warnings are pretty common coming from clang (both for standard things as well as extensions / builtins). What Louis proposes seems consistent with what the compiler does. Do you think there's a better approach that libc++ could take?

I think they're wrong there, too. 
I've enumerated why I believe so on the ML, and in Slack (several times), so I don't see the point of doing it again here.
[ Though I will note that no one has argued that my reasons are incorrect or invalid. ]

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D62428/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D62428