On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Xavier Morel <catch-...@masklinn.net> wrote: > Not being too eager to kill APIs is good, but giving rise to this kind of > living-dead APIs is no better in my opinion, even more so since Python has > lost one of the few tools it had to manage them (as DeprecationWarning was > silenced by default). Both choices are harmful to users, but in the long run > I do think zombie APIs are worse.
But restricting ourselves to cleaning out such APIs every 10 years or so with a major version bump is also a potentially viable option. So long as the old APIs are fully tested and aren't actively *harmful* to creating reasonable code (e.g. optparse) then refraining from killing them before the (still hypothetical) 4.0 is reasonable. OTOH, genuinely problematic APIs that ideally wouldn't have survived even the 3.x transition (e.g. the APIs that the 3.x subprocess module inherited from the 2.x commands module that run completely counter to the design principles of the subprocess module) should probably still be considered for removal as soon as is reasonable after a superior alternative is made available. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ 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
