Inada Naoki wrote: > If we find it broke some software, we can step back to regular > deprecation workflow. > Python 3.9 is still far from beta yet. That's why I'm +1 on these proposals.
IMO, since this would be changing a builtin function, we should at least use a version+2 deprecation cycle (in this case, removal in 3.11) regardless of reported breakages. Especially if there's no _substantial_ security, efficiency, or performance reason for immediate prevention of str() without passing an object (while specifying *encoding* and/or *error) or making *object* a positional only argument. On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 4:31 AM Inada Naoki <songofaca...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:25 PM Inada Naoki <songofaca...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > +1 for 1 and 2. > > > > If we find it broke some software, we can step back to regular > deprecation workflow. > Python 3.9 is still far from beta yet. That's why I'm +1 on these > proposals. > > -- > Inada Naoki <songofaca...@gmail.com> > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org > To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ > Message archived at > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/HWNLBBHSVB5NRQC6ESQQNCQQ2EYUMW27/ > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/YOOL6KM6JQWPSJ5O65IXWERIIDVPD3RU/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
