On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 12:41 AM Victor Stinner <vstin...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > I agree to make PendingDeprecationWarning an alias to > DeprecationWarning. I never liked "PendingDeprecationWarning" name, > it's way too long to type :-D > > Le ven. 22 mars 2019 à 03:45, Inada Naoki <songofaca...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > I want to stop using PendingDeprecationWarning for new deprecation. > > I'm fine with that. > > > More aggressively, I want to remove PendingDeprecationWarning class, > > and `PendingDeprecationWarning = DeprecationWarning` for backward > > compatibility. > > I'm not sure that I understand well. Do you want to remove the > PendingDeprecationWarning builtin symbol, or just make it an alias to > DeprecationWarning. > > I'm fine with "PendingDeprecationWarning = DeprecationWarning". > We can't do that as it will break code. Think of code which is having warnings raise exceptions and that are purposefully catching PendingDeprecationWarning but not DeprecationWarning; this change would break that. These classes are part of the public API of the warnings module and so we shouldn't change semantics like that for people who have a specific use for those two different classes regardless of how the stdlib may choose to use them. > > IMHO your email title is misleading. You don't want to *remove* > PendingDeprecationWarning, you only want to make it an alias to > DeprecationWarning, right? In term of backward compatibility, it's > very different :-) > If you want to remove PendingDeprecationWarning that's a discussion we can obviously have (which I disagree with as shown in the discuss.python.org discussion), but I think aliasing is a non-starter.
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
