Thomas Wouters schrieb: > However, changing documented, tested behaviour without warning gives > Python an even worse name. I agree with PJE that the change is the wrong > thing to do, simply because it sets (yet another) precedent. If > providing an alternate API with clearer semantics is too 'heavy-weight' > a solution and warning is for some reason unacceptable (I don't see why; > all the arguments against warning there go for *any* warning in Python) > -- then the problem isn't bad enough to fix it by breaking other code.
I think producing pointless warnings also gives Python a bad name (I've seen many complaints about Python's warnings in the past, in particular when they fill up Apache log files). However, if everybody (and here I mean everybody) can agree that adding a warning to the current implementation would be an acceptable compromise, I could agree to such a compromise also (although I would prefer if somebody else took the blame for adding that warning. I happily take the blame for changing the behavior). What specific warning would you propose, and in what specific circumstance would it be issued? Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com