On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 2:36 PM Eric V. Smith <e...@trueblade.com> wrote: > > 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.
OK, so I'm at least understanding the plan correctly. I just don't get the idea of kicking the can down the road on the hope that in 3.9 people will see the warning (knowing that you are still using a warning that is disabled by default and thus has a high chance of not being seen until 3.10), when we already have the ability to push out a visible-by-default warning now in 3.8 and get people to take notice two whole feature releases (= about 3 years) earlier. The SyntaxWarning disruption (or SyntaxError disruption) has to happen eventually, and while I support the idea of making compile-time DeprecationWarnings be emitted at runtime, I really don't think that a disabled-by-default warning is going to change a whole lot. Sure, the major packages will likely see it and update their code, but lots of smaller specialty packages and independent developers won't see it in 3.9. The bulk of the change isn't going to happen until we go to SyntaxWarning, so why not just get it over with instead of dragging it out for three years? _______________________________________________ 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/CWM2KO5IA24UCBSAYJP735EYKXIRRQRG/
