RetroSearch Browse

Wed Aug 14 19:42:09 CEST 2013 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-August/127948.html

On 14 August 2013 12:17, Eli Bendersky <eliben at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 14 August 2013 11:55, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
>> > I view a deprecation as the same thing. If we leave the module in until
>> > Python 4 then I can live with that, but simply moving documentation
>> > around
>> > is not enough to communicate to those who didn't read the release notes
>> > to
>> > know modules they rely on are now essentially orphaned.
>>
>> No, a deprecation isn't enough, because it doesn't help authors and
>> educators to know "this is legacy, you can skip it". We need both.
>
>
> +1 for both and for leaving the module in until "Python 4".
>
> Nick, perhaps we can have this "legacy-zation" process for modules
> documented somewhere? Devguide? mini-PEP?

That would be PEP 4 :)

PEPs 5 and 6 could do with some TLC, too :P

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-August/127948.html below:

[Python-Dev] Deprecating the formatter module