On Thursday 11 January 2007 07:48, Thomas Wouters wrote: > They serve a different purpose, and it isn't taking any time away > from me (or Anthony, I can confidently guess) working on 2to3.
Correct. Note that checking for something like dict.has_key is going to be far far more reliable from inside the interpreter. Heck, one of the PEP-3xxx's actually calls for doing this. > > I'm all for helping people to prepare for 3.0, since I don't > > want to see it languish in Perl 6 country. At the same time I > > agree with Raymond that migration to 3.0 can't be allowed to > > place obstacles in the way of 2.X users. They shouldn't be > > penalised for using 2.X, particularly if they are new to the > > language, otherwise we will run the risk of adversely affecting > > the Python adoption rate - which I hope no reader of this list > > wants. > > > > So, why not a new warning category: MigrationWarning? > > I believe Anthony suggested Py3KDeprecationWarning or such. I > don't think the name really matters. Correct. In addition, please read what I posted - these warnings are off by default, and won't go through the warnings mechanism at all unless you specify the command line flag. I've had a number of people say that this is something they would really, really like to see - the idea is both to let people migrate more easily, and provide reassurance that it won't be that bad to migrate! -- Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It's never too late to have a happy childhood. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
