On 8/9/2019 2:28 PM,
Jonathan Goble wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:34 PM Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I find the "Our deprecation warnings were even less
visible than
>> normal" argument for extending the deprecation
period compelling.
> Outsider's 2 cents from reading this discussion (with
no personal
> experience with this warning):
>
> I am perplexed at the opinion, seemingly espoused by
multiple people
> in this thread, that because a major part of the
problem is that the
> warnings were not visible enough, somehow the proposed
solution is
> making them not visible enough again? It's too late, in
my
> understanding, in the 3.8 cycle to add a new feature
like a change to
> how these warnings are produced (it seems a significant
change to the
> .pyc structure is needed to emit them at runtime), so
this supposed
> "solution" is nothing but kicking the can down the
road. When 3.9
> rolls around, public exposure to the problem of invalid
escape
> sequences will still be approximately what it is now
(because if
> nobody saw the warnings in 3.7, they certainly won't
see them in 3.8
> with this "fix"), so you'll end up with the same
complaints about
> SyntaxWarning that started this discussion, end up back
on
> DeprecationWarning for 3.9 (hopefully with support for
emitting them
> at runtime instead of just compile-time), then have to
wait until
> 3.10/4.0 for SyntaxWarning and eventually the next
version to actually
> make them errors.
Yes, I think that's the idea: Deprecation warning in 3.9,
but more
visible that what 3.7 has. That is, not just at compile time
but at run
time. What's required to make that happen is an open
question.
i've lost track of who suggested what in this thread, but
yes, that concept has been rolling over in my mind as a
potentially good idea after someone suggested it. Compile
time warnings should turn into bytecode for a warnings.warn
call in the generated pyc. I haven't spent time trying to
reason if that actually addresses the real issues we're
having moving forward with a syntax warning change though.
A reasonable feature to ask for as a feature in 3.9 or later
perhaps.