[Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Warning for 2.6 and greater

[Thomas Wouters]

On 1/10/07, Steve Holden <steve at holdenweb.com> wrote:
>
> Thomas Wouters wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 1/10/07, *Steve Holden* <steve at holdenweb.com
> > <mailto:steve at holdenweb.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Collin Winter wrote:
> >      > On 1/10/07, Thomas Wouters <thomas at python.org
> >     <mailto:thomas at python.org>> wrote:
> >      >> On 1/10/07, Raymond Hettinger < raymond.hettinger at verizon.net
> >     <mailto:raymond.hettinger at verizon.net>> wrote:
> >      >>> It is my strong preference that we not go down this path.
> >      >>> Instead, the 2.6 vs 3.0 difference analysis should go in an
> >      >>> external lint utility.
> >      >>>
> >      >>> The Py2.x series may live-on for some time and should do so
> >      >>> as if Py3.x did not exist.  Burdening the 2.x code with loads
> >      >>> of warnings will only clutter the source code and make
> maintenance
> >      >>> more difficult.  There may also be some performance impact.
> >      >>>
> >      >>> We should resolve that Py2.6 remain as clean as possible
> >      >>> and that Py3.0 be kept in its own world.  Forging a new
> >      >>> blade does not have to entail dulling the trusty old blade.
> >      >> The idea is that we only generate the warnings optionally, only
> >     for things
> >      >> that can be written in a manner compatible with prevalent Python
> >     versions,
> >      >> and in the most efficient manner we can manage, *except* for the
> >     few things
> >      >> that are already considered (by many) criminal to use: input(),
> >     backtics,
> >      >> mixed tabs and spaces. In other words, for any code written even
> >     remotely
> >      >> sane in the last five years, no extra warnings will be
> generated.
> >      >
> >      > I'd rather see this effort invested in a tool like Guido's 2to3,
> >
> The above appears to be a quoting error, attributing comments to me that
> were actually made by Collin Winter.


I'm sorry, that was unintentional. I was actually replying to Colin; I took
the opportunity to reply to two mails. I'm not sure what happened, it looked
right in gmail (and still does.)

I quite agree. I was really disagreeing with the proposal that the new
> warning be a subclass of DeprecationWarning, since that implies that
> warnings will appear without being requested - that would, IMHO, be a
> sad approach to migration. I'd like users who decide to remain with the
> 2.x series not to suffer at all as a result of that decision (except for
> missing out on a major language development, of course).


Ok, so, you're actually agreeing, except for the DeprecationWarning
subclassing. There was never an intent to display these py3k deprecation
warnings without an explicit flag (at least, not in this thread.) Hopefully
that puts some people at ease.

-- 
Thomas Wouters <thomas at python.org>

Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me
spread!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20070110/8d89168e/attachment.htm