[Python-ideas] working on a PEP for the __preview__ package

[Jakob Bowyer]

Surely preview should only contain whats being previewed for the next
release then when its released with the next version they carry deprecation
warnings and are removed in the following version e.g.

v1
__preview__.magic
v2
deprecate(__preview__.magic)
v3
There is no longer __preview__.magic in __preview__


On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda at gmail.com>wrote:

> > A correct way IMO would be to introduce a versioned exp27, exp271
> packages:
>
> +2. Rather than silently introducing subtle semantics changes,
> wouldn't it be better for older imports to fail with an ImportError?
> Since this is just for toying around, this shouldn't break any play,
> but it _should_ discourage (very strongly) people using experimental
> stuff in their published code.
>
> Perhaps a dunder name like __preview32__ ? __preview__._32 ?
>
> > 1. It makes it explicitly clear when imported package version was
> considered
> > experimental
>
> I agree with this too. It's a good benefit.
>
> > 2. It allows to switch between multiple experimental package versions
> > 3. It will provide future compatibility if a package released from `exp`
> > breaks API
>
> Less sold on these. This isn't the purpose of __preview__ as I
> understand it, and including every revision of every __preview__
> package could increase Python's size very dramatically over time.
>
> -- Devin
>
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:45 AM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 4:29 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 16:27:35 +0000
> >> > Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> The nice thing about the dunders is that no one will make a module
> with
> >> >> a
> >> >> conflicting name. That's really the common factor behind all uses of
> >> >> dunders:
> >> >> reserving a name for Python's use. Whether something is a protocol or
> >> >> bag of
> >> >> switches doesn't really enter into it.
> >> >
> >> > Plus, writing "from __preview__ import regex" looks cooler than
> >> > "from exp import regex".
> >>
> >> Dunder names also alert people that something special is going on (in
> >> this case, it helps alert them to the fact that the modules in this
> >> namespace *will* be moved in the future).
> >
> >
> > I am afraid that dunders will become a standard thing in many Python
> > packages, because of everybody's natural desire to use latest features
> that
> > work right. That means that new people to Python will have to deal with
> > Python magic right from the start, which will make language more
> complicated
> > for them.
> >
> > A correct way IMO would be to introduce a versioned exp27, exp271
> packages:
> > 1. It makes it explicitly clear when imported package version was
> considered
> > experimental
> > 2. It allows to switch between multiple experimental package versions
> > 3. It will provide future compatibility if a package released from `exp`
> > breaks API
> > 5. as a sum of 2+3 above - it provides a development process and extends
> > time to stabilize API with public testing and feedback before freezing
> the
> > package to die in stdlib
> >
> > --
> > anatoly t.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Python-ideas mailing list
> > Python-ideas at python.org
> > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20120104/e69354b7/attachment.html>