Mention the "unfeatures" more clearly in feature.pm

[book]

We now have 6 of them:

• switch, disabled from 5.36 onwards
• indirect, disabled from 5.36 onwards
• multidimensional, disabled from 5.36 onwards
• bareword_filehandles, disabled from 5.38 onwards
• apostrophe_as_package_separator, disabled from 5.42 onwards
• smartmatch, disabled from 5.42 onwards

It's probably worth having a section dedicated to them, that documents the wish to slowly get rid of "less than awesome" features from past Perls.

I'm not sure we actually want to separate them from the regular features in a separate section.

It should also put forward the name "unfeature" (with the goal to promote its use, instead of "negative features": it's actually a positive thing that they are disabled!).

[guest20]

no unfeature "switch" 

Owie ooof ouch, my bones

[bulk88]

Word feature @ 7 chars is a bit long. Its "okay" IMO. But anything > 8 chars, is annoying to type IMO. unfeature is 9 chars long.

Anyone have suggestions for a shorter word than unfeature @ 9 chars?

I dont have any good suggestions in my head. I invented this proposal just now:

no use qw( switch );

But I am not in love with my proposal. I think someone could invent something shorter than 9 chars, and better.
no depfeat qw( );?
no oldfeat qw( );?
no removed qw( );?
use removed qw( );?

[thesamesam]

I think "unfeature" has a nice quality in that it's easily searchable. "Perl removed" in a search engine won't work so well. Then compared to "depfeat" or "oldfeat", may as well just do "unfeature" IMO.