Le samedi 28 janvier 2012 à 10:46 -0800, Mike Meyer a écrit : > Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote: > > >On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:14:36 -0500 > >Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote: > >> On Jan 28, 2012, at 09:15 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > >> > >> >So I do not support the __preview__ package. I think we're better > >off > >> >flagging experimental modules in the docs than in their name. For > >the > >> >specific case of the regex module, the best way to adoption may just > >> >be to include it in the stdlib as regex and keep it there. Any other > >> >solution will just cause too much anxiety. > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> What does the PEP give you above this "simple as possible" solution? > > > >"I think we'll just see folks using the unstable APIs and then > >complaining when we remove them, even though they *know* *upfront* that > >these APIs will go away." > > > >That problem would be much worse if some modules were simply marked > >"experimental" in the doc, rather than put in a separate namespace. > >You will see people copying recipes found on the internet without > >knowing that they rely on unstable APIs. > > How. About doing them the way we do depreciated modules, and have them > spit warnings to stderr? Maybe add a flag and environment variable to > disable that. You're proposing that new experimental modules spit warnings when you use them? I don't think that's a good way of promoting their use :) (something we do want to do even though we also want to convey the idea that they're not yet "stable" or "fully approved") Regards Antoine.
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