Thomas Kluyver <tho...@kluyver.me.uk> added the comment: I agree, it's not a good design, but it's what's already there; I just want to ensure that it won't be removed without a deprecation cycle. My PR makes no changes to behaviour, only to documentation and tests.
This and issue 9969 have both been around for several years. A new tokenize API is clearly not at the top of anyone's priority list - and that's fine. I'd rather have *some* unicode API today than a promise of a nice unicode API in the future. And it doesn't preclude adding a better API later, it just means that the existing API would have to have a deprecation cycle. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue12486> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
