Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: >On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:14:36 -0500 >Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote: >> On Jan 28, 2012, at 09:15 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> >> >So I do not support the __preview__ package. I think we're better >off >> >flagging experimental modules in the docs than in their name. For >the >> >specific case of the regex module, the best way to adoption may just >> >be to include it in the stdlib as regex and keep it there. Any other >> >solution will just cause too much anxiety. >> >> +1 >> >> What does the PEP give you above this "simple as possible" solution? > >"I think we'll just see folks using the unstable APIs and then >complaining when we remove them, even though they *know* *upfront* that >these APIs will go away." > >That problem would be much worse if some modules were simply marked >"experimental" in the doc, rather than put in a separate namespace. >You will see people copying recipes found on the internet without >knowing that they rely on unstable APIs.
How. About doing them the way we do depreciated modules, and have them spit warnings to stderr? Maybe add a flag and environment variable to disable that. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ 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
