> Guido van Rossum writes: > > Unclear what the value is. Deprecations are systematically listed in > > the documentation AFAIK. [Fred] > If that were the only issue, what's the point of maintaining a list in > the PEP at all? Beats me. Maybe because the PEP author thought deprecating whole modules was a heavier kind of operation? Maybe because he didn't realize other things could be deprecated as well? Maybe because he planned a separate PEP for those? > I've heard requests that the deprecations be more easily located as > part of the documentation, so that there's an actual list of all > deprecations as a distinct section. There's a fair bit of merit in > that, I think. At the moment, the PEP is the closest thing we have to > that list. Yes, having a summary of deprecation info per release makes sense. Ideally it should be something readily accessible and easy to point to (e.g. from the release webpage). > Generating a list of deprecations from the markup elsewhere in the > documention shouldn't be too hard, and we could include a section in > the "What's New" document for new deprecations easily enough. If that's the way you want to do it. I think there's merit in requiring that some thought goes into the deprecation process. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4