Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan <at> gmail.com> writes: > As a starting point, I'd say warnings and above, no formatting (i.e. > just the message). To minimise bikeshedding, I'd like to be guided by > the idea that this is a more configurable alternative to printing > directly to stderr, but in the absence of application level > configuration, you wouldn't be able to tell which approach the library > was using just by looking at the program output. Makes sense. I know it's only a small change at the implementation level but the impact may be larger (due to it being a backwards-incompatible behaviour change), and the little details need to be agreed, so does it make sense to create a PEP about this? What do people think - is this bureaucratic overkill? Regards, Vinay Sajip
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