On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > > > 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..
Thanks, thought that'd be the case but figured I may as well ask. ChrisA _______________________________________________ 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
