Mark as deprecated function parameters in C++14





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{
margin-bottom:0;
}








12

















Reading this blog post and its comments, I have noticed that it gives as an example the possibility of marking specific function parameters as deprecated, as in (exaple taken from the post):



// Deprecate a function parameter
int triple([[deprecated]] int x);


Now I was wondering, what is a good use case for such a feature? No one in the comments of that post or anywhere else I have searched seem to have a clue.



EDIT:



To see it in action, there is a compilable example on goldbolt










share|improve this question






























  • Hm. I was thinking default arguments, but gcc doesn't warn on either statement in void f([[deprecated]] int n = 0); void g() { f(); f(2); }. It only warns within the function body.

    – aschepler
    May 28 at 10:56













  • Using gcc trunk, as you can see on goldbolt, the warning is issued when the parameter is used inside the function, not at call, that's why it is puzzling.

    – bracco23
    May 28 at 11:00






  • 1





    Why do you assume that there is a use case? Maybe it's possible just because there was not an exception made to disallow it.

    – eerorika
    May 28 at 11:04






  • 1





    @eerorika I am not assuming there is a use case. It is entirely possible this feature just happened to be available without any planning for it and to not be harmful to leave it as it is, yet I am curious to know if there is actually a use case.

    – bracco23
    May 28 at 12:04


















12

















Reading this blog post and its comments, I have noticed that it gives as an example the possibility of marking specific function parameters as deprecated, as in (exaple taken from the post):



// Deprecate a function parameter
int triple([[deprecated]] int x);


Now I was wondering, what is a good use case for such a feature? No one in the comments of that post or anywhere else I have searched seem to have a clue.



EDIT:



To see it in action, there is a compilable example on goldbolt










share|improve this question






























  • Hm. I was thinking default arguments, but gcc doesn't warn on either statement in void f([[deprecated]] int n = 0); void g() { f(); f(2); }. It only warns within the function body.

    – aschepler
    May 28 at 10:56













  • Using gcc trunk, as you can see on goldbolt, the warning is issued when the parameter is used inside the function, not at call, that's why it is puzzling.

    – bracco23
    May 28 at 11:00






  • 1





    Why do you assume that there is a use case? Maybe it's possible just because there was not an exception made to disallow it.

    – eerorika
    May 28 at 11:04






  • 1





    @eerorika I am not assuming there is a use case. It is entirely possible this feature just happened to be available without any planning for it and to not be harmful to leave it as it is, yet I am curious to know if there is actually a use case.

    – bracco23
    May 28 at 12:04














12












12








12








Reading this blog post and its comments, I have noticed that it gives as an example the possibility of marking specific function parameters as deprecated, as in (exaple taken from the post):



// Deprecate a function parameter
int triple([[deprecated]] int x);


Now I was wondering, what is a good use case for such a feature? No one in the comments of that post or anywhere else I have searched seem to have a clue.



EDIT:



To see it in action, there is a compilable example on goldbolt










share|improve this question

















Reading this blog post and its comments, I have noticed that it gives as an example the possibility of marking specific function parameters as deprecated, as in (exaple taken from the post):



// Deprecate a function parameter
int triple([[deprecated]] int x);


Now I was wondering, what is a good use case for such a feature? No one in the comments of that post or anywhere else I have searched seem to have a clue.



EDIT:



To see it in action, there is a compilable example on goldbolt







c++ c++14 deprecated deprecation-warning






share|improve this question
















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited May 28 at 12:04







bracco23

















asked May 28 at 10:51









bracco23bracco23

1,5125 silver badges18 bronze badges




1,5125 silver badges18 bronze badges
















  • Hm. I was thinking default arguments, but gcc doesn't warn on either statement in void f([[deprecated]] int n = 0); void g() { f(); f(2); }. It only warns within the function body.

    – aschepler
    May 28 at 10:56













  • Using gcc trunk, as you can see on goldbolt, the warning is issued when the parameter is used inside the function, not at call, that's why it is puzzling.

    – bracco23
    May 28 at 11:00






  • 1





    Why do you assume that there is a use case? Maybe it's possible just because there was not an exception made to disallow it.

    – eerorika
    May 28 at 11:04






  • 1





    @eerorika I am not assuming there is a use case. It is entirely possible this feature just happened to be available without any planning for it and to not be harmful to leave it as it is, yet I am curious to know if there is actually a use case.

    – bracco23
    May 28 at 12:04



















  • Hm. I was thinking default arguments, but gcc doesn't warn on either statement in void f([[deprecated]] int n = 0); void g() { f(); f(2); }. It only warns within the function body.

    – aschepler
    May 28 at 10:56













  • Using gcc trunk, as you can see on goldbolt, the warning is issued when the parameter is used inside the function, not at call, that's why it is puzzling.

    – bracco23
    May 28 at 11:00






  • 1





    Why do you assume that there is a use case? Maybe it's possible just because there was not an exception made to disallow it.

    – eerorika
    May 28 at 11:04






  • 1





    @eerorika I am not assuming there is a use case. It is entirely possible this feature just happened to be available without any planning for it and to not be harmful to leave it as it is, yet I am curious to know if there is actually a use case.

    – bracco23
    May 28 at 12:04

















Hm. I was thinking default arguments, but gcc doesn't warn on either statement in void f([[deprecated]] int n = 0); void g() { f(); f(2); }. It only warns within the function body.

– aschepler
May 28 at 10:56







Hm. I was thinking default arguments, but gcc doesn't warn on either statement in void f([[deprecated]] int n = 0); void g() { f(); f(2); }. It only warns within the function body.

– aschepler
May 28 at 10:56















Using gcc trunk, as you can see on goldbolt, the warning is issued when the parameter is used inside the function, not at call, that's why it is puzzling.

– bracco23
May 28 at 11:00





Using gcc trunk, as you can see on goldbolt, the warning is issued when the parameter is used inside the function, not at call, that's why it is puzzling.

– bracco23
May 28 at 11:00




1




1





Why do you assume that there is a use case? Maybe it's possible just because there was not an exception made to disallow it.

– eerorika
May 28 at 11:04





Why do you assume that there is a use case? Maybe it's possible just because there was not an exception made to disallow it.

– eerorika
May 28 at 11:04




1




1





@eerorika I am not assuming there is a use case. It is entirely possible this feature just happened to be available without any planning for it and to not be harmful to leave it as it is, yet I am curious to know if there is actually a use case.

– bracco23
May 28 at 12:04





@eerorika I am not assuming there is a use case. It is entirely possible this feature just happened to be available without any planning for it and to not be harmful to leave it as it is, yet I am curious to know if there is actually a use case.

– bracco23
May 28 at 12:04












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















3


















The rule is that the attribute is valid on, amongst other things, variable declarations (broadly). It's not specifically permitted for such declarations found in function arguments.



The original proposal, N3394, doesn't mention such a use case, either, and neither does the documentation for the original feature in GCC (which regardless accepts the equivalent usage) or in VS (I didn't check Clang).



As such, I think it's an "accident" that this is permitted, not something that anyone really had in mind as being useful.



Could it be useful to document deprecated defaulted arguments, as Artyer explores? Yes, potentially, and vaguely. But as Artyer also found, mainstream compilers don't actually react to this usage in a helpful manner.



So, at the present time, it's not useful, and the language feature wasn't particularly designed to be useful in this case.






share|improve this answer





























  • While I can see how such a corner case might happen without being planned, I think it is unlikely it has been unnoticed for all this time. Any reference to it in some discussion after it has been introduced?

    – bracco23
    May 28 at 13:34











  • I don't think it "hasn't been noticed", I think you're just the first person to care :P After all, there are plenty of other useless pieces of code we can write, and that's up to us as individuals. In other words: why bother writing a special rule into the language to prohibit it? What would we gain from such a complication? That's really the crux of it.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    May 28 at 13:41





















10


















Say you had a function like this:



void* allocate(std::size_t sz, void* hint = nullptr) {
// if you give `hint` it *might* be more efficient
}


And then you decided that it is no longer worth the effort to do stuff based on hint. So you would do this:



void* allocate(std::size_t sz, [[deprecated]] void* hint = nullptr) {
// `hint` is ignored. The compiler warns me if I use it in the
// function body accidentally, and people reading the function
// signature can see that it is probably going to be ignored.
}


This allows the library to keep the same signature/ABI (So you don't need to recompile stuff that uses it and legacy code can still keep using it without doing any harm), and also prevents it from accidentally being used again when changing the function.



But this is mostly for developers of the function, not the users of the function, in the future so they know why a seemingly "useless" parameter is there.



I would also think that this would disable the "unused parameter" warning with the -Werror=unused-parameter flag in gcc/clang, but it doesn't. Using (void) deprecated_parameter also issues a warning about using a deprecated parameter, so this seems like a bug. If it did disable the unused param warning, that would be another use case for [[deprecated]].






share|improve this answer
























  • 1





    But neither clang++ nor g++ actually warn about any calls to the function, whether or not they give an argument for hint.

    – aschepler
    May 28 at 11:18











  • @aschepler Yes, because that parameter is always passed anyways (even if it is implicitly on the callers side because of the default parameter), and it's different from the whole function being deprecated. It's more like it is deprecated inside the function body, but the caller doesn't always need to care about that.

    – Artyer
    May 28 at 11:26






  • 1





    That's neat. But it's not as idiomatic as just removing the parameter name once that's been cleaned up.

    – StoryTeller
    May 28 at 14:40



















0


















Imagine a library that is implemented, used and maintained for many years. This library is used in multiple projects.

If you would simply remove the parameter, all the projects would have to immediately adapt the source code to be able to compile again, after they upgraded to the new library version.

If a default value is added to the parameter, but the parameter not used anymore, the projects would still compile without any change, but nobody would note that something has changed at all, and maybe some behaviour/feature that was controlled by this parameter does not work anymore.



So, by marking the parameter as deprecated the projects can compile without a change, but they get a warning that something has changed and that they should change their source code, because sooner or later this parameter will disappear.






share|improve this answer






















  • 2





    But both g++ and clang++ warn only on uses of the parameter within that function's definition, and not on any calls to the function, whether or not they provide an argument for that parameter. This is the opposite of what you describe.

    – aschepler
    May 28 at 11:17













Your Answer






StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});















draft saved

draft discarded
















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f56340596%2fmark-as-deprecated-function-parameters-in-c14%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown


























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









3


















The rule is that the attribute is valid on, amongst other things, variable declarations (broadly). It's not specifically permitted for such declarations found in function arguments.



The original proposal, N3394, doesn't mention such a use case, either, and neither does the documentation for the original feature in GCC (which regardless accepts the equivalent usage) or in VS (I didn't check Clang).



As such, I think it's an "accident" that this is permitted, not something that anyone really had in mind as being useful.



Could it be useful to document deprecated defaulted arguments, as Artyer explores? Yes, potentially, and vaguely. But as Artyer also found, mainstream compilers don't actually react to this usage in a helpful manner.



So, at the present time, it's not useful, and the language feature wasn't particularly designed to be useful in this case.






share|improve this answer





























  • While I can see how such a corner case might happen without being planned, I think it is unlikely it has been unnoticed for all this time. Any reference to it in some discussion after it has been introduced?

    – bracco23
    May 28 at 13:34











  • I don't think it "hasn't been noticed", I think you're just the first person to care :P After all, there are plenty of other useless pieces of code we can write, and that's up to us as individuals. In other words: why bother writing a special rule into the language to prohibit it? What would we gain from such a complication? That's really the crux of it.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    May 28 at 13:41


















3


















The rule is that the attribute is valid on, amongst other things, variable declarations (broadly). It's not specifically permitted for such declarations found in function arguments.



The original proposal, N3394, doesn't mention such a use case, either, and neither does the documentation for the original feature in GCC (which regardless accepts the equivalent usage) or in VS (I didn't check Clang).



As such, I think it's an "accident" that this is permitted, not something that anyone really had in mind as being useful.



Could it be useful to document deprecated defaulted arguments, as Artyer explores? Yes, potentially, and vaguely. But as Artyer also found, mainstream compilers don't actually react to this usage in a helpful manner.



So, at the present time, it's not useful, and the language feature wasn't particularly designed to be useful in this case.






share|improve this answer





























  • While I can see how such a corner case might happen without being planned, I think it is unlikely it has been unnoticed for all this time. Any reference to it in some discussion after it has been introduced?

    – bracco23
    May 28 at 13:34











  • I don't think it "hasn't been noticed", I think you're just the first person to care :P After all, there are plenty of other useless pieces of code we can write, and that's up to us as individuals. In other words: why bother writing a special rule into the language to prohibit it? What would we gain from such a complication? That's really the crux of it.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    May 28 at 13:41
















3














3










3









The rule is that the attribute is valid on, amongst other things, variable declarations (broadly). It's not specifically permitted for such declarations found in function arguments.



The original proposal, N3394, doesn't mention such a use case, either, and neither does the documentation for the original feature in GCC (which regardless accepts the equivalent usage) or in VS (I didn't check Clang).



As such, I think it's an "accident" that this is permitted, not something that anyone really had in mind as being useful.



Could it be useful to document deprecated defaulted arguments, as Artyer explores? Yes, potentially, and vaguely. But as Artyer also found, mainstream compilers don't actually react to this usage in a helpful manner.



So, at the present time, it's not useful, and the language feature wasn't particularly designed to be useful in this case.






share|improve this answer
















The rule is that the attribute is valid on, amongst other things, variable declarations (broadly). It's not specifically permitted for such declarations found in function arguments.



The original proposal, N3394, doesn't mention such a use case, either, and neither does the documentation for the original feature in GCC (which regardless accepts the equivalent usage) or in VS (I didn't check Clang).



As such, I think it's an "accident" that this is permitted, not something that anyone really had in mind as being useful.



Could it be useful to document deprecated defaulted arguments, as Artyer explores? Yes, potentially, and vaguely. But as Artyer also found, mainstream compilers don't actually react to this usage in a helpful manner.



So, at the present time, it's not useful, and the language feature wasn't particularly designed to be useful in this case.







share|improve this answer















share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer








edited May 28 at 12:15

























answered May 28 at 12:09









Lightness Races in OrbitLightness Races in Orbit

317k59 gold badges527 silver badges878 bronze badges




317k59 gold badges527 silver badges878 bronze badges
















  • While I can see how such a corner case might happen without being planned, I think it is unlikely it has been unnoticed for all this time. Any reference to it in some discussion after it has been introduced?

    – bracco23
    May 28 at 13:34











  • I don't think it "hasn't been noticed", I think you're just the first person to care :P After all, there are plenty of other useless pieces of code we can write, and that's up to us as individuals. In other words: why bother writing a special rule into the language to prohibit it? What would we gain from such a complication? That's really the crux of it.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    May 28 at 13:41





















  • While I can see how such a corner case might happen without being planned, I think it is unlikely it has been unnoticed for all this time. Any reference to it in some discussion after it has been introduced?

    – bracco23
    May 28 at 13:34











  • I don't think it "hasn't been noticed", I think you're just the first person to care :P After all, there are plenty of other useless pieces of code we can write, and that's up to us as individuals. In other words: why bother writing a special rule into the language to prohibit it? What would we gain from such a complication? That's really the crux of it.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    May 28 at 13:41



















While I can see how such a corner case might happen without being planned, I think it is unlikely it has been unnoticed for all this time. Any reference to it in some discussion after it has been introduced?

– bracco23
May 28 at 13:34





While I can see how such a corner case might happen without being planned, I think it is unlikely it has been unnoticed for all this time. Any reference to it in some discussion after it has been introduced?

– bracco23
May 28 at 13:34













I don't think it "hasn't been noticed", I think you're just the first person to care :P After all, there are plenty of other useless pieces of code we can write, and that's up to us as individuals. In other words: why bother writing a special rule into the language to prohibit it? What would we gain from such a complication? That's really the crux of it.

– Lightness Races in Orbit
May 28 at 13:41







I don't think it "hasn't been noticed", I think you're just the first person to care :P After all, there are plenty of other useless pieces of code we can write, and that's up to us as individuals. In other words: why bother writing a special rule into the language to prohibit it? What would we gain from such a complication? That's really the crux of it.

– Lightness Races in Orbit
May 28 at 13:41















10


















Say you had a function like this:



void* allocate(std::size_t sz, void* hint = nullptr) {
// if you give `hint` it *might* be more efficient
}


And then you decided that it is no longer worth the effort to do stuff based on hint. So you would do this:



void* allocate(std::size_t sz, [[deprecated]] void* hint = nullptr) {
// `hint` is ignored. The compiler warns me if I use it in the
// function body accidentally, and people reading the function
// signature can see that it is probably going to be ignored.
}


This allows the library to keep the same signature/ABI (So you don't need to recompile stuff that uses it and legacy code can still keep using it without doing any harm), and also prevents it from accidentally being used again when changing the function.



But this is mostly for developers of the function, not the users of the function, in the future so they know why a seemingly "useless" parameter is there.



I would also think that this would disable the "unused parameter" warning with the -Werror=unused-parameter flag in gcc/clang, but it doesn't. Using (void) deprecated_parameter also issues a warning about using a deprecated parameter, so this seems like a bug. If it did disable the unused param warning, that would be another use case for [[deprecated]].






share|improve this answer
























  • 1





    But neither clang++ nor g++ actually warn about any calls to the function, whether or not they give an argument for hint.

    – aschepler
    May 28 at 11:18











  • @aschepler Yes, because that parameter is always passed anyways (even if it is implicitly on the callers side because of the default parameter), and it's different from the whole function being deprecated. It's more like it is deprecated inside the function body, but the caller doesn't always need to care about that.

    – Artyer
    May 28 at 11:26






  • 1





    That's neat. But it's not as idiomatic as just removing the parameter name once that's been cleaned up.

    – StoryTeller
    May 28 at 14:40
















10


















Say you had a function like this:



void* allocate(std::size_t sz, void* hint = nullptr) {
// if you give `hint` it *might* be more efficient
}


And then you decided that it is no longer worth the effort to do stuff based on hint. So you would do this:



void* allocate(std::size_t sz, [[deprecated]] void* hint = nullptr) {
// `hint` is ignored. The compiler warns me if I use it in the
// function body accidentally, and people reading the function
// signature can see that it is probably going to be ignored.
}


This allows the library to keep the same signature/ABI (So you don't need to recompile stuff that uses it and legacy code can still keep using it without doing any harm), and also prevents it from accidentally being used again when changing the function.



But this is mostly for developers of the function, not the users of the function, in the future so they know why a seemingly "useless" parameter is there.



I would also think that this would disable the "unused parameter" warning with the -Werror=unused-parameter flag in gcc/clang, but it doesn't. Using (void) deprecated_parameter also issues a warning about using a deprecated parameter, so this seems like a bug. If it did disable the unused param warning, that would be another use case for [[deprecated]].






share|improve this answer
























  • 1





    But neither clang++ nor g++ actually warn about any calls to the function, whether or not they give an argument for hint.

    – aschepler
    May 28 at 11:18











  • @aschepler Yes, because that parameter is always passed anyways (even if it is implicitly on the callers side because of the default parameter), and it's different from the whole function being deprecated. It's more like it is deprecated inside the function body, but the caller doesn't always need to care about that.

    – Artyer
    May 28 at 11:26






  • 1





    That's neat. But it's not as idiomatic as just removing the parameter name once that's been cleaned up.

    – StoryTeller
    May 28 at 14:40














10














10










10









Say you had a function like this:



void* allocate(std::size_t sz, void* hint = nullptr) {
// if you give `hint` it *might* be more efficient
}


And then you decided that it is no longer worth the effort to do stuff based on hint. So you would do this:



void* allocate(std::size_t sz, [[deprecated]] void* hint = nullptr) {
// `hint` is ignored. The compiler warns me if I use it in the
// function body accidentally, and people reading the function
// signature can see that it is probably going to be ignored.
}


This allows the library to keep the same signature/ABI (So you don't need to recompile stuff that uses it and legacy code can still keep using it without doing any harm), and also prevents it from accidentally being used again when changing the function.



But this is mostly for developers of the function, not the users of the function, in the future so they know why a seemingly "useless" parameter is there.



I would also think that this would disable the "unused parameter" warning with the -Werror=unused-parameter flag in gcc/clang, but it doesn't. Using (void) deprecated_parameter also issues a warning about using a deprecated parameter, so this seems like a bug. If it did disable the unused param warning, that would be another use case for [[deprecated]].






share|improve this answer
















Say you had a function like this:



void* allocate(std::size_t sz, void* hint = nullptr) {
// if you give `hint` it *might* be more efficient
}


And then you decided that it is no longer worth the effort to do stuff based on hint. So you would do this:



void* allocate(std::size_t sz, [[deprecated]] void* hint = nullptr) {
// `hint` is ignored. The compiler warns me if I use it in the
// function body accidentally, and people reading the function
// signature can see that it is probably going to be ignored.
}


This allows the library to keep the same signature/ABI (So you don't need to recompile stuff that uses it and legacy code can still keep using it without doing any harm), and also prevents it from accidentally being used again when changing the function.



But this is mostly for developers of the function, not the users of the function, in the future so they know why a seemingly "useless" parameter is there.



I would also think that this would disable the "unused parameter" warning with the -Werror=unused-parameter flag in gcc/clang, but it doesn't. Using (void) deprecated_parameter also issues a warning about using a deprecated parameter, so this seems like a bug. If it did disable the unused param warning, that would be another use case for [[deprecated]].







share|improve this answer















share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer








edited May 28 at 11:34

























answered May 28 at 11:04









ArtyerArtyer

8,4041 gold badge13 silver badges34 bronze badges




8,4041 gold badge13 silver badges34 bronze badges











  • 1





    But neither clang++ nor g++ actually warn about any calls to the function, whether or not they give an argument for hint.

    – aschepler
    May 28 at 11:18











  • @aschepler Yes, because that parameter is always passed anyways (even if it is implicitly on the callers side because of the default parameter), and it's different from the whole function being deprecated. It's more like it is deprecated inside the function body, but the caller doesn't always need to care about that.

    – Artyer
    May 28 at 11:26






  • 1





    That's neat. But it's not as idiomatic as just removing the parameter name once that's been cleaned up.

    – StoryTeller
    May 28 at 14:40














  • 1





    But neither clang++ nor g++ actually warn about any calls to the function, whether or not they give an argument for hint.

    – aschepler
    May 28 at 11:18











  • @aschepler Yes, because that parameter is always passed anyways (even if it is implicitly on the callers side because of the default parameter), and it's different from the whole function being deprecated. It's more like it is deprecated inside the function body, but the caller doesn't always need to care about that.

    – Artyer
    May 28 at 11:26






  • 1





    That's neat. But it's not as idiomatic as just removing the parameter name once that's been cleaned up.

    – StoryTeller
    May 28 at 14:40








1




1





But neither clang++ nor g++ actually warn about any calls to the function, whether or not they give an argument for hint.

– aschepler
May 28 at 11:18





But neither clang++ nor g++ actually warn about any calls to the function, whether or not they give an argument for hint.

– aschepler
May 28 at 11:18













@aschepler Yes, because that parameter is always passed anyways (even if it is implicitly on the callers side because of the default parameter), and it's different from the whole function being deprecated. It's more like it is deprecated inside the function body, but the caller doesn't always need to care about that.

– Artyer
May 28 at 11:26





@aschepler Yes, because that parameter is always passed anyways (even if it is implicitly on the callers side because of the default parameter), and it's different from the whole function being deprecated. It's more like it is deprecated inside the function body, but the caller doesn't always need to care about that.

– Artyer
May 28 at 11:26




1




1





That's neat. But it's not as idiomatic as just removing the parameter name once that's been cleaned up.

– StoryTeller
May 28 at 14:40





That's neat. But it's not as idiomatic as just removing the parameter name once that's been cleaned up.

– StoryTeller
May 28 at 14:40











0


















Imagine a library that is implemented, used and maintained for many years. This library is used in multiple projects.

If you would simply remove the parameter, all the projects would have to immediately adapt the source code to be able to compile again, after they upgraded to the new library version.

If a default value is added to the parameter, but the parameter not used anymore, the projects would still compile without any change, but nobody would note that something has changed at all, and maybe some behaviour/feature that was controlled by this parameter does not work anymore.



So, by marking the parameter as deprecated the projects can compile without a change, but they get a warning that something has changed and that they should change their source code, because sooner or later this parameter will disappear.






share|improve this answer






















  • 2





    But both g++ and clang++ warn only on uses of the parameter within that function's definition, and not on any calls to the function, whether or not they provide an argument for that parameter. This is the opposite of what you describe.

    – aschepler
    May 28 at 11:17
















0


















Imagine a library that is implemented, used and maintained for many years. This library is used in multiple projects.

If you would simply remove the parameter, all the projects would have to immediately adapt the source code to be able to compile again, after they upgraded to the new library version.

If a default value is added to the parameter, but the parameter not used anymore, the projects would still compile without any change, but nobody would note that something has changed at all, and maybe some behaviour/feature that was controlled by this parameter does not work anymore.



So, by marking the parameter as deprecated the projects can compile without a change, but they get a warning that something has changed and that they should change their source code, because sooner or later this parameter will disappear.






share|improve this answer






















  • 2





    But both g++ and clang++ warn only on uses of the parameter within that function's definition, and not on any calls to the function, whether or not they provide an argument for that parameter. This is the opposite of what you describe.

    – aschepler
    May 28 at 11:17














0














0










0









Imagine a library that is implemented, used and maintained for many years. This library is used in multiple projects.

If you would simply remove the parameter, all the projects would have to immediately adapt the source code to be able to compile again, after they upgraded to the new library version.

If a default value is added to the parameter, but the parameter not used anymore, the projects would still compile without any change, but nobody would note that something has changed at all, and maybe some behaviour/feature that was controlled by this parameter does not work anymore.



So, by marking the parameter as deprecated the projects can compile without a change, but they get a warning that something has changed and that they should change their source code, because sooner or later this parameter will disappear.






share|improve this answer














Imagine a library that is implemented, used and maintained for many years. This library is used in multiple projects.

If you would simply remove the parameter, all the projects would have to immediately adapt the source code to be able to compile again, after they upgraded to the new library version.

If a default value is added to the parameter, but the parameter not used anymore, the projects would still compile without any change, but nobody would note that something has changed at all, and maybe some behaviour/feature that was controlled by this parameter does not work anymore.



So, by marking the parameter as deprecated the projects can compile without a change, but they get a warning that something has changed and that they should change their source code, because sooner or later this parameter will disappear.







share|improve this answer













share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer










answered May 28 at 11:03









ReneRene

1,9511 gold badge7 silver badges17 bronze badges




1,9511 gold badge7 silver badges17 bronze badges











  • 2





    But both g++ and clang++ warn only on uses of the parameter within that function's definition, and not on any calls to the function, whether or not they provide an argument for that parameter. This is the opposite of what you describe.

    – aschepler
    May 28 at 11:17














  • 2





    But both g++ and clang++ warn only on uses of the parameter within that function's definition, and not on any calls to the function, whether or not they provide an argument for that parameter. This is the opposite of what you describe.

    – aschepler
    May 28 at 11:17








2




2





But both g++ and clang++ warn only on uses of the parameter within that function's definition, and not on any calls to the function, whether or not they provide an argument for that parameter. This is the opposite of what you describe.

– aschepler
May 28 at 11:17





But both g++ and clang++ warn only on uses of the parameter within that function's definition, and not on any calls to the function, whether or not they provide an argument for that parameter. This is the opposite of what you describe.

– aschepler
May 28 at 11:17



















draft saved

draft discarded



















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f56340596%2fmark-as-deprecated-function-parameters-in-c14%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown









Popular posts from this blog

Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029