RetroSearch Browse

Wed Mar 14 23:04:10 CET 2007 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2007-March/071953.html

Thomas Wouters schrieb:
> However, changing documented, tested behaviour without warning gives 
> Python an even worse name. I agree with PJE that the change is the wrong 
> thing to do, simply because it sets (yet another) precedent. If 
> providing an alternate API with clearer semantics is too 'heavy-weight' 
> a solution and warning is for some reason unacceptable (I don't see why; 
> all the arguments against warning there go for *any* warning in Python) 
> -- then the problem isn't bad enough to fix it by breaking other code.

I think producing pointless warnings also gives Python a bad name
(I've seen many complaints about Python's warnings in the past, in
  particular when they fill up Apache log files).

However, if everybody (and here I mean everybody) can agree that adding
a warning to the current implementation would be an acceptable
compromise, I could agree to such a compromise also (although I
would prefer if somebody else took the blame for adding that warning.
I happily take the blame for changing the behavior).

What specific warning would you propose, and in what specific
circumstance would it be issued?

Regards,
Martin

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2007-March/071953.html below:

[Python-Dev] Proposal to revert r54204 (splitext change)