> On Oct 29, 2015, at 11:46, Laura Creighton <l...@openend.se> wrote: > > In a message of Thu, 29 Oct 2015 18:27:59 +0000, Paul Moore writes: >> The idle issues seem to me to demonstrate that shadowing the stdlib is >> a bad idea. Of course, consenting adults, and if you override you're >> responsible for correctly replacing the functionality, and all that, >> but honestly, I don't think it needs to be *easy* to shadow the stdlib >> - there's nothing wrong with it being an "advanced" technique that >> people have to understand in order to use. > > I am actually sick of the 'consenting adults' argument. > I am dealing with '11 year old children trying to write their > first, third and tenth python programs'. For the life of me > I cannot see how convenience for the sort of person who has a > legitimate reason to shadow the syslib should get a higher priority > over these mites who are doing their damndest to write python > despite natural language barriers and the fact that their peers > and parents think they are nuts to want to do so. > > (a grumpy comment from a teacher at a Swedish 'coding for > kids' club. Disregard if too grumpy.)
+1 on **warning**, warning still allow people to shadow stdlib, and for people who have **legitimate** reasons to shadow, we can always find a solution to to tag a module as “yes I know I am shadowing, I am doing that on purpose”. StdlibShadowWarning and warning filter ? Also a warning would be useful for people to discover that some Stdlib modules exist, and maybe explore them. -- M _______________________________________________ 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
