On Mon, 6 May 2019 19:39:39 +0300 Serge Matveenko <s...@matveenko.ru> wrote: > On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 7:29 PM Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 11:14 AM Serhiy Storchaka <storch...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> I do not propose to change the current behavior. I propose to add new > >> named constructors. In most cases default constructors can be used, but > >> in cases when we use type check or different tricks to limit the type of > >> the argument, we could use named constructors. > >> > >> Current named constructors: > >> > >> * dict.fromkeys() > >> * int.from_bytes() > >> * float.fromhex() > >> * bytes.fromhex() > >> * bytearray.fromhex() > > > > > > Understood. My point is that we won't be able to remove the original > > behavior, so we'd end up with two ways to do it. :-( > > With all respect, I disagree. There are ways to evolve Python such as > deprecation policies which proven to be effective. There are ways to > monitor current features adoption on PyPI to see whether it is safe to > remove deprecated things.
The main constructors for built-in types are used so pervasively that there is no hope of actually removing such deprecated behavior. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
