[issue14551] imp.load_source docs removed from python3 docs...is this correct?

[Brett Cannon]

Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> added the comment:

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 06:51, Antoine Pitrou <report at bugs.python.org>wrote:

>
> Antoine Pitrou <pitrou at free.fr> added the comment:
>
> > Well, I want backwards-compatibility *now*, not forever.
>
> I don't think changing a function signature in an incompatible way is
> generally acceptable.

I don't think it is either.

> You might make one of the arguments optional,
> though (but keeping the current semantics when the argument *is*
> passed). If it's not possible, you can add another function with the
> intended behaviour.
>

Right, which is why I'm thinking that I could make the module name argument
optional for load_module() to avoid repeating yourself since that
information is passed to the constructor.

>
> The importlib bootstrapping has already had some (unavoidable)
> disruptive consequences. Let's keep them to a minimum. People *rely* on
> our APIs, even the less popular ones.

Which is unfortunate when the API is bad. Anyway, the deprecation can be a
long one, but I don't want people having to look in two places for
import-related stuff like urllib/urllib2 caused for URLs.

----------

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue14551>
_______________________________________