Martin v. Loewis wrote: > "Fredrik Lundh" <fredrik@pythonware.com> writes: > > > and what good is that, really? why would the *users* of a > > module I've written have to care about this? > > > > the Py_DEPRECATED approach (and the "grep" tool) is a much > > better way to use everybody's time. > > Your users will care about it because your module fails to compile if > the deprecated API is wrapped with Py_DEPRECATED oh, please. 70-80% of my users use libraries that someone else compiled for them. giving meaningless warnings is a great way to make them question the quality of the software (I had enough of that when 2.1 started complaining about shadowed globals), but it won't help them a bit. > whereas it continues to compile and run when the warning is produced >- the warning is annoying (and really meant for you only), but is the > lesser evil. if the message is meant for me, please make sure I see it. the C compiler/linker has no problem doing that. but I cannot guarantee that every library I've ever written has a test suite that tests every piece of the library, or that the test suite is set up to look for warnings (doctest won't catch them, for example). </F>
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