On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 6:19 PM Inada Naoki <songofacandy at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 3:02 AM Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote: > > > >> > >> There might be some small troubles. But it was small enough for > >> Python minor versions, I think. > > > > > > I don't think it's worth the cost to users. We can just choose to stop > using it in the stdlib and not use PendingDeprecationWarning. And if people > want to force others to define their own PendingDeprecationWarning by > deprecating that's fine, but the aliasing where it could cause unintended > exception swallowing for something related to breaking changes seems > unnecessarily risky to me simply because we don't want to ask users to > update their code in a backwards-compatible fashion. > > I still can't believe there are real world usage of > PendingDeprecationWarning > other than warnings.warn() and assertRaises(). > I've made the same mistake of assuming something that made no sense to me wouldn't make sense to anyone else and I have been proven wrong nearly every time. ;) -Brett > > But I'm OK to not removing actual class. > > Stop using it in stdlib reduces maintenance cost like this: > https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/12494/files > > And deprecation in document reduces learning cost. > People can skip reading and understanding document of > PendingDeprecatedWarning. > > Keeping PendingDeprecationWarning class for several years is very > low cost compared to these cost. > > Regards, > -- > Inada Naoki <songofacandy at gmail.com> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20190323/33459885/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