> On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 08:28:03AM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > Well, none, really. But let's not change the name sys.exitfunc just > > > for the sake of deprecation, because it will probably break existing > > > and well-behaving modules (not just non-well-behaving ones). > > > > That's never been a reason not to deprecate something. > > Sorry. Sure. What I was opposing here is Raymond's original claim in this > thread, which was apparently the reason he wanted to deprecate sys.exitfunc: > > """ > The atexit module does attempt to co-exist by introducing code to > register a function in sys.exitfunc if it were defined before "import > atexit" was called. However, this is unreliable because it depends on > import order and the library is free to introduce an earlier "import > atexit" which would break code relying on the co-existance mechanism. > """ > > I claim that there is nothing unreliable or depending on import > order here, as long as all concerned parties do the right thing. > Now if there are other good reasons to deprecate sys.exitfunc, like > it being another way of doing something for which a better interface > is provided, then fine. Raymond may have overstated his case somewhat. But the fact is that it is easy to abuse sys.exitfunc with a poorly written handler, and the atexit module avoids this. This in itself to me looks like a classic "deprecate the old solution, recommend the new way". TOOWTDI! --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