Raymond Hettinger <rhettin...@users.sourceforge.net> added the comment:
To be clear, I'm strongly -1 on switching to a PendingDeprecationWarning. That is not what it is for. There is nothing in the PEP 5 language that requires it (a PDW isn't even mentioned, the pep is mainly targeted at deep language changes to the parser and compiler). I realize that Hagan wants to resurrect this construct, but he needs to recognize that it is unsalvagable. It is likely that most current uses of nested() are replaceable by the new with-statement. Some of those uses are buggy (no clean-up for failed constructors). The process of converting those cases will fix the bugs. We are doing these users a disservice if the warning is made silent by default. People *need* to be notified about the potential bugginess. Essentially, the new with-statement syntax is a bugfix (the old API was hopelessly error-prone in a way that is hard to find and fix). The statement in the docs that nested() is *equivalent* to two nested withs is erroneous -- the function is buggy because the equivalence is broken (a user is much better-off just writing two with-statements than using nested()). ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue6288> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com