On 01/28/2014 06:18 AM, Ethan Furman wrote: > On 01/28/2014 04:37 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:06:57PM -0800, Larry Hastings wrote: >>> .. note: if "times" is specified using a keyword argument, and >>> provided with a negative value, repeat yields the object forever. >>> This is a bug, its use is unsupported, and this behavior may be >>> removed in a future version of Python. >> >> How about changing "may be removed" to "will be removed", he asks >> hopefully? :-) > > +1 See the recent discussion "Deprecation policy" right here in python-dev for a cogent discussion on this issue. I agree with Raymond's view, posted on 1/25: * A good use for deprecations is for features that were flat-out misdesigned and prone to error. For those, there is nothing wrong with deprecating them right away. Once deprecated though, there doesn't need to be a rush to actually remove it -- that just makes it harder for people with currently working code to upgrade to newer versions of Python. * When I became a core developer well over a decade ago, I was a little deprecation happy (old stuff must go, keep everything nice and clean, etc). What I learned though is that deprecations are very hard on users and that the purported benefits usually aren't really important. I think the "times behaves differently when passed by name versus passed by position" behavior falls exactly into this category, and its advice on how to handle it is sound. Cheers, //arry/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20140128/5aa08894/attachment.html>
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