On 8/9/2019 2:28 PM, Jonathan Goble wrote:
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:34 PM Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
I find the "Our deprecation warnings were even less visible than
normal" argument for extending the deprecation period compelling.
Outsider's 2 cents from reading this discussion (with no personal
experience with this warning):
I am perplexed at the opinion, seemingly espoused by multiple people
in this thread, that because a major part of the problem is that the
warnings were not visible enough, somehow the proposed solution is
making them not visible enough again? It's too late, in my
understanding, in the 3.8 cycle to add a new feature like a change to
how these warnings are produced (it seems a significant change to the
.pyc structure is needed to emit them at runtime), so this supposed
"solution" is nothing but kicking the can down the road. When 3.9
rolls around, public exposure to the problem of invalid escape
sequences will still be approximately what it is now (because if
nobody saw the warnings in 3.7, they certainly won't see them in 3.8
with this "fix"), so you'll end up with the same complaints about
SyntaxWarning that started this discussion, end up back on
DeprecationWarning for 3.9 (hopefully with support for emitting them
at runtime instead of just compile-time), then have to wait until
3.10/4.0 for SyntaxWarning and eventually the next version to actually
make them errors.
Yes, I think that's the idea: Deprecation warning in 3.9, but more
visible that what 3.7 has. That is, not just at compile time but at run
time. What's required to make that happen is an open question.
It seems to me, in my humble but uneducated opinion, that if people
are not seeing the warnings, then continuing to give them warnings
they won't see isn't a solution to anything. Put the warning front and
center. The argument of third-party packages will always be an issue,
even if we wait ten years. So put these warnings front and center now
so package and code maintainers actually see it, and I'll bet the
problematic escape sequences get fixed rather quickly.
What am I missing here?
Hopefully the warnings in 3.9 would be more visible that what we saw in
3.7, so that library authors can take notice and do something about it
before 3.10 rolls around.
Eric
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/GGZY7B2WFHVXRQ7NVTHGC2F4L5RJIKDI/
