Derek Wilson added the comment: > It's not an ideal world. Sorry, but I think this change is too invasive to > consider.
Obviously its not ideal, which is why my suggestion doesn't require intelligent 3rd party libraries and is explicitly not invasive. As I said in my previous comment, using a keyword only argument means: "If [3rd party libraries] haven't [properly handled **kwargs] then nothing changes for them and they just support exactly the same features they supported previously." The upshot is it is not invasive and no one needs to care unless they want to use the new functionality. As far as this change being needed or not, nothing "needs" to be made easier to use if it is possible to use it. But that isn't really a good reason not to improve things. I honestly think that part of the reason this hasn't come up is because the advanced features of logging are so difficult to use that people just don't use it to its fullest extent. On top of that, when learning python, logging is way harder to grok than it should be for someone new to python. Logging and unittest are two of the most important libraries for new pythonistas to learn, but they are also some of the most nebulous, stateful, magical, java-like, complicated, verbose, and difficult to master packages in python. They've been around for a while for sure - but doesn't that rather mean that they could use an update? I'm willing to submit a patch if it has the smallest chance of being considered? ---------- versions: +Python 3.6 -Python 3.4 _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue18689> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
