May 29, 2002
3:34 p.m.
GvR> Or maybe we could introduce a new warning category, GvR> SilentDeprecationWarning, which is normally ignored (like GvR> OverflowWarning already is). This could be turned on GvR> explicitly with a -W option so someone wanting to check that GvR> their code is future-proof would have an easy way to do so. BAW> +1 Thank you. Though it is painful to bring up some of these topics (I think I've caught more than my fair share of arrows recently), I find there's often a new way to look at things that makes the problem more tractable. I suggest a migration path from SilentDeprecationWarning to DeprecationWarning. Skip