Sept. 15, 2014
7:56 a.m.
On 15 Sep 2014, at 09:43, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
Yes, but it is clear that sometimes it is just too much work. e.g we can (by definition) not put everything new in Pharo4 in Pharo3.
So this should be seen as a âbest effortâ rule...
Putting that best-effort practice into place would already be a big plus. Though I see no reason to not pass method renames through a deprecation status. They can never be *that* urgent, and itâs quite easy to deprecate them and remove them in the next version. Keep up the good work! cheers Johan