Le samedi 28 janvier 2012 à 10:46 -0800, Mike Meyer a écrit : > Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > > >On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:14:36 -0500 > >Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote: > >> On Jan 28, 2012, at 09:15 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > >> > >> >So I do not support the __preview__ package. I think we're better > >off > >> >flagging experimental modules in the docs than in their name. For > >the > >> >specific case of the regex module, the best way to adoption may just > >> >be to include it in the stdlib as regex and keep it there. Any other > >> >solution will just cause too much anxiety. > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> What does the PEP give you above this "simple as possible" solution? > > > >"I think we'll just see folks using the unstable APIs and then > >complaining when we remove them, even though they *know* *upfront* that > >these APIs will go away." > > > >That problem would be much worse if some modules were simply marked > >"experimental" in the doc, rather than put in a separate namespace. > >You will see people copying recipes found on the internet without > >knowing that they rely on unstable APIs. > > How. About doing them the way we do depreciated modules, and have them > spit warnings to stderr? Maybe add a flag and environment variable to > disable that.
You're proposing that new experimental modules spit warnings when you use them? I don't think that's a good way of promoting their use :) (something we do want to do even though we also want to convey the idea that they're not yet "stable" or "fully approved") Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ 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
