On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > So starting in Python 2.7 and 3.2, the Python developers have made > DeprecationWarnings invisible by default: > http://docs.python.org/whatsnew/2.7.html#the-future-for-python-2-x > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/stdlib-sig/2009-November/000789.html > http://bugs.python.org/issue7319 > The only way to see them is to explicitly request them by running > Python with -Wd. > > The logic seems to be that between the end-of-development for 2.7 and > the moratorium on 3.2 changes, there were a *lot* of added > deprecations that were annoying people, and deprecations in the Python > stdlib mean "this code is probably sub-optimal but it will still > continue to work indefinitely". So they consider that deprecation > warnings are like a lint tool for conscientious developers who > remember to test their code with -Wd, but not something to bother > users with. > > In Numpy, the majority of our users are actually (relatively > unsophisticated) developers, and we don't plan to support deprecated > features indefinitely. Our deprecations seem to better match what > Python calls a "FutureWarning": "warnings about constructs that will > change semantically in the future." > http://docs.python.org/library/warnings.html#warning-categories > FutureWarning is displayed by default, and available in all versions of > Python. > > So maybe we should change all our DeprecationWarnings into > FutureWarnings (or at least the ones that we actually plan to follow > through on). Thoughts? > > - N
We had the same discussion for Biopython two years ago, and introduced our own warning class to avoid our deprecations being silent (and thus almost pointless). It is just a subclass of Warning (originally we used a subclass of UserWarning). _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
