On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Eric Smith <e...@trueblade.com> wrote: > Mark Dickinson wrote: >> >> What are the current plans for PEP 328 (the absolute imports PEP) in >> Python 2.x? > Not sure about the decision one way or the other. But if there's not going > to be a 2.8, and if DeprecationWarnings are off by default anyway, I'm not > sure it makes any sense to add a DeprecationWarning in 2.7. From my quick > testing, -3 doesn't warn about relative imports. Perhaps a better strategy > in this particular case is to make -3 give that warning?
Well, if there's any possibility at all of a Python 2.8 (and it's not clear to me whether this has been absolutely ruled out) then it's conceivable that the people producing it might want to make imports absolute for 2.8, perhaps as part of an effort to minimize 2.x -> 3.x differences. A DeprecationWarning in 2.7 would help with that. On the other hand, it's easy enough to use the 'from __future__ import' in 2.x code. At any rate, it's clear that there should be a -3 warning. I'll open an issue. > Aside: > We really need a better way to track things we need to do in the next > version of Python so things like this don't fall through the cracks. We > added a 3.2 version tag before 3.1 was released so that we could add a few > "remember to do this in 3.2" issues dealing with deprecations. Perhaps it's > time to add a 3.3 version tag? I don't think we should add a 2.8 tag, that > would give false hope. Agreed on all points. Would it be terrible to simply add all relevant tags the moment a PEP is accepted? E.g., if a PEP pronounces some particular behaviour deprecated in Python 3.3 and removed in Python 3.4, then corresponding release blockers for 3.3 and 3.4 could be opened as part of implementing the PEP. Mark _______________________________________________ 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
