On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 3:02 AM Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > >> >> There might be some small troubles. But it was small enough for >> Python minor versions, I think. > > > I don't think it's worth the cost to users. We can just choose to stop using > it in the stdlib and not use PendingDeprecationWarning. And if people want to > force others to define their own PendingDeprecationWarning by deprecating > that's fine, but the aliasing where it could cause unintended exception > swallowing for something related to breaking changes seems unnecessarily > risky to me simply because we don't want to ask users to update their code in > a backwards-compatible fashion.
I still can't believe there are real world usage of PendingDeprecationWarning other than warnings.warn() and assertRaises(). But I'm OK to not removing actual class. Stop using it in stdlib reduces maintenance cost like this: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/12494/files And deprecation in document reduces learning cost. People can skip reading and understanding document of PendingDeprecatedWarning. Keeping PendingDeprecationWarning class for several years is very low cost compared to these cost. Regards, -- Inada Naoki <songofaca...@gmail.com> _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
