This whole vexing issue isn't going to be solved with any simple fix. A tool that could identify upcoming trouble spots might or might not be helpful.
Or perhaps it could be implemented as a __future__ feature, so that those who choose not to use it during development see no change. The primary effect of the import would be to put the import system into "PEP-594 advice mode," where any imports of potentially troublesome modules would at least give assiduous developers some idea of how much trouble to expect by emitting warnings (unless explicitly silenced). Even though only intended for development, it would inevitably make its way into production code, so there would still be plenty of room for bikeshedding about that ;-). On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 4:07 PM Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > On Mon, 27 May 2019 09:27:33 -0400 > David Mertz <me...@gnosis.cx> wrote: > > On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 11:17 PM Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nobody reads warnings. > > > > > > If nobody reads warnings, we should just remove the warnings module and > > > be done with it. That should probably be a PEP. > > > > > > > We'll have to start issuing a PendingDeprecationWarning when folk import > > the `warnings` module. :-) > > And message users that they can `pip install warnings` to get the > independently-maintained version ;-) > > Regards > > Antoine. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/steve%40holdenweb.com >
_______________________________________________ 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
