On 14 August 2013 12:17, Eli Bendersky <eli...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 14 August 2013 11:55, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: >> > I view a deprecation as the same thing. If we leave the module in until >> > Python 4 then I can live with that, but simply moving documentation >> > around >> > is not enough to communicate to those who didn't read the release notes >> > to >> > know modules they rely on are now essentially orphaned. >> >> No, a deprecation isn't enough, because it doesn't help authors and >> educators to know "this is legacy, you can skip it". We need both. > > > +1 for both and for leaving the module in until "Python 4". > > Nick, perhaps we can have this "legacy-zation" process for modules > documented somewhere? Devguide? mini-PEP?
That would be PEP 4 :) PEPs 5 and 6 could do with some TLC, too :P 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
