2009/11/9 Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se>:
In a message of Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:35:35 +1100, Ben Finney writes:
Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> writes:
So constantly spitting out DeprecationWarnings as soon as something becomes deprecated is a most excellent way to train people to ignore DeprecationWarnings. […]
Teaching people to run their code through some sort of code-checker every so often strikes me as more likely to be [helpful].
Why is one of these helpful but the other one not so? Why can't the run your code through a code-checker remain as easy as running the code with the next version of Python?
Ben Finney
Because casual programmers are not motivated to go after Deprecation Warnings and modify their code to make such things go away. They're coding to a different standard, one where you don't go off and change things unless you absolutely have to. So lots of DeprecationWarnings will only train them to ignore DeprecationWarnings, or all Warnings.
Laura
When I run some code that isn't mine and it produces DeprecationWarnings "everytime" I start it or do my usual stuff with it, it annoys me. I then consider doing one of three things: * update to most recent version of package and hope they have gone away, * hack/update code myself to make them go away, * search for a way to silence warnings because they are annoying. Which of the three I do depends on which one is the easiest/least effort. If the deprecation warning tells me which line to go to, and basically what change to make (think the error sum(s for s in list_of_strings) gives you) then I will do that. So maybe what we need is good deprecation warnings that tell you how to fix the code to make them go away. Tim
_______________________________________________ stdlib-sig mailing list stdlib-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig