On Dec 12, 2010, at 02:42 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:01:42 +0100 >Łukasz Langa <luk...@langa.pl> wrote: > >> Wiadomość napisana przez Raymond Hettinger w dniu 2010-12-11, o godz. 22:18: >> >> >> *(I sometimes lose track of which changes were made in both branches >> >> pre-2.7, which ones were mode post-2.7 release, and which ones went in >> >> pre-2.7, but were 3.x only regardless) >> > >> > Right. I missed that it was already in 2.7. >> > So, now we're stuck with it, forever. >> >> Why not deprecate it for 3.2 (easy since it's probably not yet used anywhere >> anyway, even in 2.7) and introduce sys.sysconfig. > >We already had a lot of churn around these APIs (distutils & friends). I >don't think it's a good idea to introduce even more churn. >Oh and by the way it's too late to add or remove features from 3.2. > >> I really like that much better than Java-like accessor functions. > >Do you actually use sysconfig yourself? It's quite a specialized >module, and I don't think API elegance arguments have a great weight >here.
I have used them and I do think they're fairly ugly and unwieldy. However, I agree that we should not rush into a different design. Since sysconfig was essentially refactored out of distutils (and now we have two ways to do it!), and we're getting distutils2 for 3.3, I think it would be better to work out a more natural design for sysconfig for 3.3. Then the sysconfig module can go through the natural deprecation cycle. -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
