Guido van Rossum wrote: > Maybe we need a new concept, "silent deprecation"? We would do we > could to discourage the use of modules (like types or string) in the > documentation, maybe even removing their documentation altogether, but > the interpreter would not issue a warning message. I think explicit is better than implicit. The docs should state that the feature is in the process of being deprecated. First quietly, then loudly, then removed. I would also like to see approximate dates for the schedule. Otherwise, I fear people will say, I saw the message for 2 years, I figured it was safe. The message could be something like: XXX is deprecated and will issue a warning after D/D/D. XXX is deprecated and will be removed after D/D/D. The date could be a version too. Doesn't much matter to me. This approach gives more insight into the general direction of the language also, so I think it's a very good idea (+1). Neal
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