On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 5:41 PM, geremy condra <debat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm having some difficulty reconciling the idea of "protecting"
>> developers from warnings with "we're all adults here" and
>> "errors should never pass silently, unless explicitly silenced".
>> Should I be?
>
> Yes. Warnings are effectively errors that are allowed to pass -- in
> effect, silently, since users end up silencing them.
Ok, so whats the problem with letting them keep silencing them?
I don't see how you can get error ennui from warnings you never
see.
> The "manly" thing to do (to pick an expression popularized by Linus
> Torvalds) would be to have only errors, and test your code with new
> Python versions before allowing it to run there.
Lets say I wrestle wolverines in my spare time- are you saying that
the warnings should be silent or that there just shouldn't be any?
As an aside, given how often the discussion of running on a version
you haven't tested comes up, is there a convenience function that
raises an error in the event that you're outside of the tested range?
Something akin to:
def check_version(minimum, maximum):
from sys import version_info
maximum = tuple(int(x) for x in maximum.split("."))
minimum = tuple(int(x) for x in minimum.split("."))
if not minimum < version_info < maximum:
raise RuntimeError("Improper version of Python")
Geremy Condra
_______________________________________________
stdlib-sig mailing list
stdlib-sig@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig
