RetroSearch Browse

Mon Nov 8 16:12:55 CET 2010 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-November/105385.html

On 11:44 am, ncoghlan at gmail.com wrote:
>All,
>
>I was about to commit the patch for issue 2001 (the improvements to
>the pydoc web server and the removal of the Tk GUI) when I realised
>that pydoc.serve() and pydoc.gui() are technically public standard
>library APIs (albeit undocumented ones).
>
>Currently the patch switches serve() to start the new server
>implementation and gui() to start the server and open a browser window
>for it.
>
>It occurred to me that, despite the "it's an application" feel to the
>pydoc web server APIs, it may be a better idea to leave the two
>existing functions alone (aside from adding DeprecationWarning), and
>using new private function names to start the new server and the web
>browser.
>
>Is following the standard deprecation procedure the better course
>here, or am I being overly paranoid?

Following the deprecation procedure here sounds awesome to me.  Thanks 
for considering it, I hope you'll choose to go that way.

Jean-Paul

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-November/105385.html below:

[Python-Dev] Backward incompatible API changes in the pydoc module