On Mon Feb 23 2015 at 10:55:23 AM Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:44 AM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> > wrote: > > I think that's a bit too strong. This has been unquestionably valid, > correct > > Python -- it was an intentional feature from the start. It may not have > > turned out great, but I think that before warning loudly about every > > instance of this we should have a silent deprecation (which you can turn > > into a visible warning with a command-line flag or a warnings filter). > And > > we should have agreement that we're eventually going to make it a syntax > > error. > > Is it at all possible for this to be introduced in the 2.x line, or is > the entire concept of a deprecation period one that has to start with > a minor version? > Starts with a minor version. > > If it's never going to happen in 2.x, I'll raise this as yet another reason to get the course and all our students migrated to 3.x, but on > the flip side, it means that we absolutely can't get the benefit until > that jump is made. > Never going to happen in 2.x..
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
