On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Greg Ewing wrote: >> Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >>> I think the main thing that may be putting me off is the amount of >>> energy that went into deciding whether or not to emit Py3k warnings or >>> DeprecationWarning or PendingDeprecationWarning for use of the old >>> threading API. >> >> Having made that decision, though, couldn't the result >> just be re-used for any future renaming exercises of >> this kind? > > Maybe - the problem with taking that decision and trying to get a > general rule out of it is that there were plenty of reasonable arguments > on all sides (there were more than just 2 options, which made the choice > all the more challenging). It wouldn't take many changes in the > specifics of a situation for the "best" answer to be different from what > we ended up doing in the threading case. The precedent would add weight > to the idea of doing the same thing again, but I don't think it would be > enough on its own to completely decide the matter. > > So the only general rule I really got out of that experience was > actually "let's not do this again if we can possibly avoid it" :)
I'll gladly take that as an added rationalization of my plea not to change datetime. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
