On Wednesday 05 November 2003 02:48 pm, Michael Hudson wrote: > "Raymond Hettinger" <python at rcn.com> writes: > > [Neal Norwitz] > > > >> For 2.4 I'd suggest we officially deprecate: apply, coerce, intern. > > > > +1 > > I think apply is probably widely enough used that this is too strong. > > It could be a right royal pain in the arse if you wanted to have code > that still ran in 1.5.2. I realize that this poses other problems, > but I don't feel we should be going out of our way to make it harder. Removing _any_ built-in that was around in 1.5.2 will pose similar problems. How hard can it be, in Python source that needs to run on both 1.5.2 and 2.5, to, e.g.: try: import legacy_25x_152 except ImportError: pass where the "legacy module" would inject apply (etc) in builtins? (In 2.4, you'd "just" need to turn off deprecation warnings, which in such a stretched case as 1.5-to-2.4 you're surely doing anyway...). Guido has specifically asked for built-ins that could be deprecated. It doesn't seem to me that asking for deprecation warnings to be turned off, or a "legacy module" to be conditionally imported, is "going out of our way to make it harder" to have code running all the way from 1.5 to 2.5 -- if such a feat currently requires 99 units of effort it MAY move all the way to 100 this way, but I doubt the relative augmentation of effort is even as high as that. Alex
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