On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 01:54, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Kern wrote:
>> It will be hard to write something generic. The individual functions >> will still have to write code that handles the old arguments anyways, >> so all it would do is move the warning message from a warnings.warn() >> into the decorator. It's not worth it. > > If we change default values of some functions, you don't think it would > be useful to raise a warning if people do not use the argument (that is > use the default value) ? I remember a long time ago, when some functions > got their axis argument changed (pre 1.0 numpy), it took me a long time > to realize why my code broke. I don't see a reason to wrap it in a decorator. It saves no significant effort. > By saying the function has to handle the old argument, you are implying > that we don't allow API changes, right ? If we enforce this, again, > deprecating argument/default value has no value at all. But up to now, > it has happened fairly regularly. It should not be happening regularly in the future. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
