On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 7:02 AM, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Benjamin Peterson wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 6:24 AM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Some effort needs to be made to clear the standard library of -3 >>> warnings. >>> Running -3 on production code usually involves exercising library code >>> so >>> the useful result is obscured by Python complaining about itself. Since >>> that use case involves the users own tests, I don't think the effort >>> needs >>> to be extended to our own unittest suite. But the rest of the library >>> could >>> likely benefit from a good -3 cleanup. >> >> Yes, indeed. We should make sure, however, that the changes in the 2.6 >> libraries are the absolute minimum to get the job done. (I'm trying to >> pretend like this isn't violating the prohibition on all-inclusive >> overhauls in the stdlib.) >> > The prohibition is on *gratuitous* changes, basically along the lines of "if > it ain't broke, don't fix it". The stdlib is definitely broken if it raises > warnings of that kind.
Is the stdlib broken or is it the warnings that are broken? The code is just fine in 2.6. Adding pragmas to disable warnings would be just fine. Or we could hardcode some warnings as "already seen". -- Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus _______________________________________________ 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
