On 12/1/2010 8:22 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:23 AM, Terry Reedy<tjre...@udel.edu> wrote:
It would be easiest to just remove the two lines above.
Or should I define functions _xxx names that issue a deprecation warning and
attach them as attributes to each object? (Defining instance methods would
not be the same).
Given that functions are converted to bound methods only on retrieval
from an instance, why wouldn't it be the same?
The two SequenceMatcher instance attributes are bound functions of the
two sets, not of the instance. But you are right in the sense that the
usage would be the same. Since, as of a week ago, the sets were
implemented as dicts, any code depending on the class of the underlying
instance is already broken. So I will go with S-M methods and add a doc
string like "Undocumented, deprecated method that will disappear in 3.3.
Do not use!" to show up in a help() listing.
But yes, if you want to get rid of them, then deprecation for 3.2 and
removal in 3.3 is the way to go.
OK.
Alternatively, not deprecating them at all and just leaving them
undocumented with a comment in the source to say they have been
deliberately omitted from the docs would also be fine.
Too messy and too useless ;-).
--
Terry Jan Reedy
_______________________________________________
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
