This whole vexing issue isn't going to be solved with any simple fix. A
tool that could identify upcoming trouble spots might or might not be
helpful.
Or perhaps it could be implemented as a __future__ feature, so that those
who choose not to use it during development see no change.
The primary e
On Mon, 27 May 2019 09:27:33 -0400
David Mertz wrote:
> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 11:17 PM Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>
> > > Nobody reads warnings.
> >
> > If nobody reads warnings, we should just remove the warnings module and
> > be done with it. That should probably be a PEP.
> >
>
> We'll
On 27.05.2019 4:55, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 04:03:11PM +0300, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote:
On 24.05.2019 9:55, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I don't know if this is a good idea or a terrible idea or somewhere in
between, so I'm throwing it out to see if anyone likes it.
[
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 11:17 PM Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> > Nobody reads warnings.
>
> If nobody reads warnings, we should just remove the warnings module and
> be done with it. That should probably be a PEP.
>
We'll have to start issuing a PendingDeprecationWarning when folk import
the `warning
Thanks Steve for your comments, I appreciate them. As I said I don't
know if this is a good idea or not so please read my responses below as
part of a friendly debate aimed at reaching consensus, not an argument.
(The argument is in Room 12 with Mr. Barnard.)
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 09:54:05AM
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 04:03:11PM +0300, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote:
> On 24.05.2019 9:55, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >I don't know if this is a good idea or a terrible idea or somewhere in
> >between, so I'm throwing it out to see if anyone likes it.
[...]
> This would greately damage Pytho
On 24.05.2019 9:55, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I don't know if this is a good idea or a terrible idea or somewhere in
between, so I'm throwing it out to see if anyone likes it.
Let's add a third option to PEP 594 between "keep" and "remove":
explicitly flagging a module as unmaintained. Unmaintained
On Fri, 24 May 2019 09:54:05 -0700
Steve Dower wrote:
>
> All in all, this is basically where we are today, with the exception
> that we haven't officially said that we no longer support these modules.
> PEP 594 is this official statement, and our usual process for things we
> don't support is
On 23May2019 2355, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I don't know if this is a good idea or a terrible idea or somewhere in
between, so I'm throwing it out to see if anyone likes it.
Let's add a third option to PEP 594 between "keep" and "remove":
explicitly flagging a module as unmaintained. Unmaintained
I don't know if this is a good idea or a terrible idea or somewhere in
between, so I'm throwing it out to see if anyone likes it.
Let's add a third option to PEP 594 between "keep" and "remove":
explicitly flagging a module as unmaintained. Unmaintained modules:
- will raise a warning when impo
10 matches
Mail list logo
