"M.-A. Lemburg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 2008-07-16 14:02, Michael Foord wrote: > > M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > >> Note that PEP 4 targets deprecating use of whole modules, not > >> single APIs, or - like in your case - more or less the complete > >> existing API of a module. > > > > Which PEP is usually referenced for the deprecation of individual > > APIs? > > PEP 5 could be used for that.
That seems an even worse fit; it speaks of changing language features, not library modules. At least PEP 4 talks about when to raise DeprecationWarning. > Adding several 10s of deprecation warnings to the unittest module is > not going to make life easier for anyone. Adding just a single one > on import and following PEP 4 is. I don't see how the first "is not going to make life easier" if the second somehow is. Is a programmer going to be helpless in the face of some DeprecationWarnings but not others? > If you do want to apply major changes to a module without changing > the name, then this could be done as part of the 2.x -> 3.x > transition. This has already been rejected <URL:http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-April/078485.html>. I'm inclined to agree that it's not right for 2.x. I'll revise the PEP accordingly. -- \ “First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing, for verbing | `\ weirds language. Then, they arrival for the nouns and I speech | _o__) nothing, for I no verbs.” —Peter Ellis | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
