I don't consider changing a DeprecationWarning to a PendingDeprecationWarning "resurrecting" its target.
Seems like resurrection to me. Pending warnings are hidden by default, so someone has to go look for it (and no one does this). The problem with the nested() construct is not so much that it duplicates the new with-statement; the problem is that it is a bug factory when used as advertised. The sole justification for keeping it around is that it handles an obscure use case (one that isn't even shown in its documentation or examples). I'm not opposing the idea to change the DeprecationWarning to a PendingDeprecationWarning, but I don't think we're doing the users any favors by hiding the warning message. Raymond P.S. If you switch to PendingDeprecationWarning, the example in the docs should probably be switched to show the one valid use case (passing in a prepackaged nest of context managers). Right now, the current example just shows the hazardous pattern that is much better served by the new with-statement syntax. _______________________________________________ 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
