what does 'deprecated' mean with respect to "bare structure types"?

[james anderson]

On 11 Jun 2013, at 1:14 AM, Luís Oliveira wrote:
> [...]
> 
> 
>>> There were two reasons for deprecating the bare struct type, then.
>>> From the implementation point of view, the disambiguation code is
>>> intrusive and error-prone so we'd like to remove it as soon as
>>> possible.
>> 
>> in itself, that does not convince.  the less-than-obvious reasons for variations at usage sites and the variations themselves would appear to this reader to be at least as intrusive and as error-prone as the much less numerous accommodations in the cffi code. from skimming the mailing list archive, it appears that this was a situation where the implications took some time to comprehend, but once they have been, what reason would exists, to require unnecessary forms? perhaps if either the problem were self-evident or the documentation would make a clearer case for the elaboration, it would be easier to follow your argument.
> 
> You are quite correct that the backwards compatibility code isn't as
> bad as it once was. (I didn't remember the extent of the
> simplification achieved in the last rewrite! :-))
> 
> Still, the API argument stands.

which is? (a link to the pertinent point in the thread suffices.)

best regards, from berlin,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/cffi-devel/attachments/20130611/38c67e1a/attachment.html>