On 30 January 2016 at 09:39, Barry Warsaw firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Jan 29, 2016, at 06:11 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
+1 from me as well, especially once Serhiy's comments are addressed.
Likewise - an additional proofreading pass would be useful, but the overall content looks fine to me.
Me too, but only if you add a PendingDeprecationWarning to PendingDeprecationWarning <wink>.
There were some discussions a while back of restoring a distinction between the two by having code executed directly at the REPL (whether at the command line or in IDLE) show DeprecationWarning by default, but still hide PendingDeprecationWarning globally.
That idea actually seemed to garner general approval, so I suspect the main reason the discussion died out was the fact that it's a bit fiddly to implement.