Closed atomczak closed 4 months ago
Hold on, these 8 entities are still deprecated (by IFC 4). Don't they miss the deprecation label? See #874
are they deprecated? It says "deprecated for instantiation and will become ABSTRACT". But as @TLiebich said in #871, they were not even made abstract after all.
agree to the rephrasing proposal.
It should be treated as abstract, not as deprecated. How about:
IFC4 CHANGE This entity shall be treated as abstract and not be instantiated; its subtypes should be used instead. It will become ABSTRACT in a future major release.
lets keep the keyword "deprecation" also for collecting all active deprecations into a single list
IFC4 DEPRECATION This entity shall be treated as abstract and not be instantiated; its subtypes should be used instead. It will become ABSTRACT in a future major release.
i.e. adding a standardized deprecation tag, that is searchable and could be used to generate a list of all active deprecations as part of the change log.
"IFC DEPRECATION" would result in this tag: which to me would imply this IfcEnergyConversionDevice is deprecated, but it isn't.
I give up; let's keep the tags as they currently are.
According to my knowledge there isn't a well established term for deprecation only for concrete usage as in a transition from a concrete to an abstract class. I would vote for not marking this as deprecated.
remove ABSTRACT annotation. Read more in #871