util: inspect - remove very old legacy args

[refack]

Undocumented, and refactored 6 years ago
Refs: 07774e6

Checklist

• make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
• tests and/or benchmarks are included
• documentation is changed or added
• commit message follows commit guidelines

[BridgeAR]

This is still used a lot in the wild.

[nodejs-github-bot]

@refack sadly an error occured when I tried to trigger a build :(

[BridgeAR]

I would also like to remove those but before that, we definitely have to add a) a runtime deprecation and b) make sure we open a couple PRs for modules that use the old notation. Using Gzemnid works well for finding those.

I am +1 on changing this to a runtime deprecation.

[mscdex]

FWIW it was documented at one point, just a long time ago (v0.8.x seems to the the last branch that had it documented).

[refack]

Found this very old legacy compatibility code. I'm seeking feedback on deprecation policy before digging in.
According to the discussion in #14679 and the guides:

node/COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md

Lines 262 to 263 in e039524

	- Any object, property, method, argument, behavior, or event not documented in
	the Node.js documentation is internal.

this is "internal" and does not need deprecation.

[refack]

I am +1 on changing this to a runtime deprecation.

it was documented at one point

This is still used a lot in the wild.

In that case could we jump straight to runtime deprecation?

[mscdex]

I disagree on calling it internal as it was a publicly documented signature, however at the time the documentation was changed, there was no mechanism in place to deprecate a specific function signature. If we are going to officially deprecate it, I would rather start with a documentation deprecation as I'm sure there are people still using this signature (myself included as it it's easier/faster to type and more succinct). The other choice is to re-document it.

[BridgeAR]

@mscdex IMHO a documentation deprecation would be the opposite of what we would want to achieve: this is current not documented at all. Therefore adding a doc only deprecation would actually mean we have to add that part to the docs or no one would ever stumble upon it. Thus, I am definitely only +1 for a runtime deprecation. Otherwise we can just keep it as is.

[mscdex]

@BridgeAR We've document-deprecated "private" properties/methods before and those were never documented. I don't see why document-deprecating something that was once publicly documented to be a problem.

[refack]

Found the last reference it's in:
https://nodejs.org/download/release/v0.9.2/docs/api/util.html
not in
https://nodejs.org/download/release/v0.9.3/docs/api/util.html

a documentation deprecation would be the opposite of what we would want to achieve

We could add a line saying:

Deprecated: The legacy function signature that was changed in node 0.9.3 `util.inspect(object, [showHidden], [depth], [colors])`

I'd recommend we add this now, and a runtime in 11. That should get TSC approval.

[refack]

See #22753

[ex1st]

"options" can be null also

[refack]

Seems there is consesouns to document instead.

Refs: #23205