RE: Terminology question: Deprecated function

[Matthew Horn <mhorn -at- macromedia -dot- com>]

Actually, I think "Deprecated Functions" is perfect. You said so yourself,
it has "widespread usage in API documentation", which means it won't confuse
your users, which means you should use it.
 
Keeping it simple,
 -matt

  >>-----Original Message-----
  >>From: Stern, Geoff [mailto:GStern -at- NetSilicon -dot- com]
  >>Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 10:06 AM
  >>To: TECHWR-L
  >>Subject: Terminology question: Deprecated function
  >>
  >>
  >>De-lurking to pose a terminology question:
  >>
  >>Our software engineers have been using the term "deprecated 
  >>function" to
  >>mean a function that has been (and still is) fully 
  >>supported  but will
  >>not be supported in some future version (usually the next 
  >>one or so).
  >>
  >>None of us -- engineers or writers -- likes this term, 
  >>although it seems
  >>to be widespread usage in API documentation.
  >>
  >>Any suggestions for an alternative that's fairly laconic? 
  >>(It would be
  >>nice to have something short enough to use in a kind of 
  >>overview table
  >>or checklist of APIs.)
   >>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Announcing new options for IPCC 01, October 24-27 in Santa Fe. 
Attend the entire event, select a single day, or sign up for 
a Saturday postconference workshop.  http://ieeepcs.org/2001

  Your monthly sponsorship message here reaches more than
  5000 technical writers, providing 2,500,000+ monthly impressions.
  Contact Eric (ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com) for details and availability.

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit 
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.