Le mardi 15 septembre 2009 à 21:51 +0200, Georg Brandl a écrit : > > Of course it does them reasonably well. But for most of these "common" > use cases you talk about above, a replacement library will be able to > offer the same or a very similar API, so the breakage is not much worse > than with md5/hashlib.
Well I do think that md5 shouldn't have been deprecated in 2.x. AFAIU, it was easy to continue supporting it (by creating a simple stub); annoying users wasn't worth what we gained in maintenance, IMO. But regardless, this is not the same situation. Migrating from md5 to hashlib is simply changing an import line and a module name. Migrating from optparse to argparse involves an API change. > I wouldn't say it has few bugs filed against it; sadly I have no hard data, > but since I read each new tracker item (or at least the title), I would say > that there are many modules that have fewer bugs filed than optparse. > > Of course, this also is correlated with the module's size (it's currently > the 12th largest single module in trunk/Lib). It is also correlated with the module's usefulness. Parsing command line options is certainly much more common than, say, normalizing unicode strings or adding fractions together. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ stdlib-sig mailing list stdlib-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig
