Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan <at> gmail.com> writes: > As a starting point, I'd say warnings and above, no formatting (i.e. > just the message). To minimise bikeshedding, I'd like to be guided by > the idea that this is a more configurable alternative to printing > directly to stderr, but in the absence of application level > configuration, you wouldn't be able to tell which approach the library > was using just by looking at the program output.
Makes sense. I know it's only a small change at the implementation level but the impact may be larger (due to it being a backwards-incompatible behaviour change), and the little details need to be agreed, so does it make sense to create a PEP about this? What do people think - is this bureaucratic overkill? Regards, Vinay Sajip _______________________________________________ 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
