>Or maybe we could introduce a new warning category, >SilentDeprecationWarning, which is normally ignored (like >OverflowWarning already is). This could be turned on explicitly with >a -W option so someone wanting to check that their code is >future-proof would have an easy way to do so. > >I do not want to ignore all DeprecationWarning messages by default, as >it would defeat the main purpose of the warning. +1 I'm quite happy to leave deprecation warnings to an external tool, personally. I'm happy to use external tools for a lot of stuff, like "tell me about the likely version compatibility issues of this code".
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