I don't mind whether its "in" or "out", but as a language user I think it's best to minimise undocumented interfaces. According to that principle, if it's "in", then it should also work as documented (and be documented), and be "supported". If it's "out" then it should either be removed entirely or be marked "private" (i.e. leading underscore, unless I'm mistaking my style guidelines).
Cheers, -T On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Raymond Hettinger <pyt...@rcn.com> wrote: > > [Martin v. Löwis] > >> I disagree that our users are served by constantly breaking the >> API, and removing stuff just because we can. I can't see how >> removing API can possibly serve a user. >> > > Am not following you here. My suggestion was to remove the two > methods in Py3.1 which isn't even in alpha yet. This is for a feature > that has a simple substitute, was undocumented for Py3.0, and had > long been documented in Py2.x as being unreliable. > > It's seems silly to me that an incomplete patch from a year ago > would need to wait another two years to ever see the light of day > (am presuming that 3.1 goes final this summer and that 3.2 follows > 18 months later). That being said, I don't really care much. > We don't actually have to do anything. It could stay in forever > and cause no harm. > > > Raymond > _______________________________________________ > 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/tleeuwenburg%40gmail.com > -- -------------------------------------------------- Tennessee Leeuwenburg http://myownhat.blogspot.com/ "Don't believe everything you think"
_______________________________________________ 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
