Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> added the comment: On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 06:51, Antoine Pitrou <rep...@bugs.python.org>wrote:
> > Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> added the comment: > > > Well, I want backwards-compatibility *now*, not forever. > > I don't think changing a function signature in an incompatible way is > generally acceptable. I don't think it is either. > You might make one of the arguments optional, > though (but keeping the current semantics when the argument *is* > passed). If it's not possible, you can add another function with the > intended behaviour. > Right, which is why I'm thinking that I could make the module name argument optional for load_module() to avoid repeating yourself since that information is passed to the constructor. > > The importlib bootstrapping has already had some (unavoidable) > disruptive consequences. Let's keep them to a minimum. People *rely* on > our APIs, even the less popular ones. Which is unfortunate when the API is bad. Anyway, the deprecation can be a long one, but I don't want people having to look in two places for import-related stuff like urllib/urllib2 caused for URLs. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue14551> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com