I thought I had a reasonable proposal: deprecate in 3.1, remove in 3.3. Adding a PendingDeprecationWarning in 3.0 would be fine. Doing anything in 2.6 would not be fine, except perhaps making it a PendingDeprecationWarning whan -3 is given.
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Benjamin Peterson wrote: > >> Please don't -- a Py3k warning makes no sense if the feature isn't really > >> going away in Py3k. Py3k warnings really should only warn about things > >> that are going to break in 3.0. > >> > >> If the decision is reached that such a warning makes sense, I'd propose > >> to only warn in an "extended Py3k warning mode" activated with -33. > > A Py3k warning is already a extended DeprecationWarning! Why don't we > > just give it a DeprecationWarning in 3.0? > > PendingDeprecatingWarning: maybe. > DeprecationWarning: no. > > > Cheers, > Nick. > > -- > Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia > --------------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.boredomandlaziness.org > _______________________________________________ > > > Python-3000 mailing list > Python-3000@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/guido%40python.org > -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
