[ ] you have thought of existing ways to solve your problem before suggesting changes to the language, including simple ones

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:40 AM, Dominic Fandrey via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 28/01/2021 14:27, codusnocturnus via Std-Proposals wrote:
>> The major compilers provide a way to suppress specific warnings.
>
> [ X] you have read the mail you replied to
>
>> https://godbolt.org/z/YaEv5M
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
>>
>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>> On Thursday, January 28, 2021 4:05 AM, Dominic Fandrey via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> I recently ran into this issue:
>>>
>>> 1. Marked a set of legacy methods [[deprecated]]
>>> 2. Unit tests no longer compile (we run -Wall -Werror of course)
>>>
>>> Of course I don't want to get rid of the unit tests before I get rid of the
>>> functions. So I was faced with two choices:
>>>
>>> 3. Create #ifdef #pragma soup for all 3 compilers that we use
>>> 4. Remove [[deprecated]]
>>>
>>> The #ifdef #pragma soup needs to be updated every time a compiler is added,
>>> and it bloats the code and makes unit tests more difficult to read. So I
>>> went for option 2. As long as I cannot ignore [[deprecated]] in a portable
>>> manner I cannot use it.
>>>
>>> So my suggestion is:
>>>
>>>
>>> [[deprecated("use: std::optional<std::size_t> size()")]]int size(std::size_t & size);
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> bool test_size() {
>>> std::size_t s{0};
>>> return 0 == [[deprecated]]size(s) && s != 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals