Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:40:24 +0000 From: Josef Karthauser <joe@tao.org.uk> To: Mike Barcroft <mike@freebsd.org> Cc: Doug Barton <DougB@DougBarton.net>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LSCOLORS warning is silly Message-ID: <20020225094024.GA25472@genius.tao.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20020225023845.D31007@espresso.q9media.com> References: <3C79CD3B.E315DF4B@DougBarton.net> <20020225005343.C31007@espresso.q9media.com> <3C79E2AE.AFCA54F0@DougBarton.net> <20020225023845.D31007@espresso.q9media.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 02:38:45AM -0500, Mike Barcroft wrote: > Doug Barton <DougB@DougBarton.net> writes: > > Mike Barcroft wrote: > > > Deprecated features should generate warnings. > > > > Ok, then let's call it "Undocumented legacy support." I agree that > > features we don't want to support anymore should generate warnings that > > encourage users to change. However, there is so little cost to support > > the old flags that there is no reason to ever discontinue that support. > > it's two lines of code. You can see them in the diff. The code is even > > properly documented to indicate it's purpose. It can't get any better > > than that. > > I don't have any objections to making this a supported legacy mode, > but I think deprecated features (things we *want* to go away) should > produce warnings. I'd prefer not to support N different ways of specifying colours, and want to hold onto making the deprecated version include warnings. Sorry, Joe [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjx6BogACgkQXVIcjOaxUBZrEACdFvFzislwWTiwD5GsXDQTvuPV PKEAn2x9G2m4MPOXnhYq5Bn018HDqobL =e/d2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020225094024.GA25472>