On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm wondering if Mark should add the exception he recently removed back > in as a Deprecation Warning when tp_compare is defined, but > tp_richcompare is not.
This sounds reasonable to me. A third-party module that implements tp_compare but not tp_richcompare is almost certainly not going to be giving the behaviour that its author intended, after 3.0.1. Currently, the only warning that such an author gets is a possible compiler warning about incompatible pointer types (type of tp_compare versus type of tp_reserved), should he/she happen to recompile and be watching the compiler output closely. > Such a warning should also be present when > running with -3 in 2.7 (assuming it isn't already there). I'm not sure how/whether that would work, given that there are probably still plenty of 2.7 modules in the distribution that (quite legitimately) define tp_compare but not tp_richcompare. Mark _______________________________________________ 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
