# Base.modules\_warned\_for silently removed in 1.8

**URL:** https://discourse.julialang.org/t/base-modules-warned-for-silently-removed-in-1-8/79035
**Category:** General Usage
**Tags:** breaking
**Created:** [April 5, 2022, 7:17am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/base-modules-warned-for-silently-removed-in-1-8/79035 "2022-04-05T07:17:53Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 12

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Sukera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sukera](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Sukera)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2022, 9:50am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/base-modules-warned-for-silently-removed-in-1-8/79035/12 "2022-04-05T09:50:12Z")

</div>

Please don’t get me wrong, I do agree that I think internals should be documented! I also think that existence of documentation should not equal API and made effectively the same complaint with possible solutions [in a comment on a PR](https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/42863). Granted, the place for this discussion was not right, but if you want to continue the train of thought I had there, I welcome it! I was only responding & describing the status quo after all.

Though I must preface this by saying that I wouldn’t want this to end up with compiler-enforced access barriers. Documentation wise, yes absolutely, but please don’t prevent me from accessing internals if I choose to take the risk of it changing in the next version - that’s a maintenance burden a developer willingly takes on by accessing internals.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/base-modules-warned-for-silently-removed-in-1-8/79035)._