On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 03:36, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: > I mostly agree with Fredrik. What good does removal of xmllib do? > It's not that it is causing any maintenance burden, so we could just > leave it in. Whether this means that we keep xmllib until P3k, I > don't know. > > As for PEP 4: I don't know whether it needs to be listed there. It > appears that the PEP is largely unmaintained (I, personally, do not > really maintain it). So one option would be to just stop using PEP 4 > for recording deprecations, since we now have the warnings module. > If we want to keep PEP 4, we need to follow the procedures it > requires (or modify them if we don't like them).
I agree. We don't need to use PEP 4 for listing module deprecation schedules. It would be better if we included that information in the DeprecationWarning. Probably nobody reads PEP 4 when they get a DeprecationWarning, but everyone reads the message that's printed, so if it said something like "This module is deprecated and slated for removal in Python 2.6", I think we'd be providing better information to our users. -Barry
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
