On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 06:04:05PM -0800, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
[Anthony Baxter]
I've had a number of people say that this is something they would really, really like to see - the idea is both to let people migrate more easily, and provide reassurance that it won't be that bad to migrate!
If Py3.0 is going to come out before Py2.6, can we table the discussion until then? We may find that a) migration was easier than we thought, b) that stand-alone migration tools are sufficient, or c) by the time Py2.6 comes-out, no one cares about having 2.x vs 3.x warnings. OTOH, if people do care, then we'll have a strong case for loading these warnings into Py2.6 before it gets close to being final.
I'm also a fan of not scratching something until it itches but if someone else already feels the itch and wants to do the work +0. The pro warnings camp has said it won't add interpreter overhead unless you ask for it (and they are willing to test that it is so).
Also, I'm wondering if the desire for 2.6 warnings is based on the notion that it will be possible to get large tools to work under both Py2.x and Py3.x. With all the module renaming/packaging, old-style classes disappearing, encoded text objects, real division and whatnot; that notion may be a pipe-dream.
No one has seriously suggested that it would be easy or if you prefer no one serious has suggested it would be easy ;)
As far as "reassurance that it won't be that bad to migrate", screens full of warnings may be less than reassuring.
If folks want to put in the effort (and people heavier than me have offered) to support light-weight optional warnings in addition to the 2to3 tool I can't complain. It seems redundant to me but their time isn't mine. -Jack