On 07:57 pm, digitalx...@gmail.com wrote:
In the thread about replacing re with regex someone mentioned adding
to __future__ which isnt a great idea as future APIs are already
solidified, they just live there to give developer time to adapt their
code. The idea of a __experimental__ area is good for any pep's or
stliib additions that are somewhat controversial (API isnt agreed on,
code may take a while to integrate properly, developer wants some time
to hash out any edge case bugs or API clarifications that may come up
in large scale testing, etc).
__experimental__ should emit a warning on import that says anything in
here may change or be removed at any time and should not be used in
stable code.
__experimental__ features should behave the same as __future__ in that
they can add new keywords or semantics to the existing language
__experimental__ features can move directly to the stlib or builtins
if they do not add new keywords and/or are backwards compatible with
the feature they are replacing. Otherwise they move into __future__
for how ever many releases are deemed reasonable time for developers
to adapt their code.
Hi Dj,
As a developer of Python libraries and applications, I don't see how
this would make my life easier.
A warning in a module docstring that a module may not be long-lived if
it is not well received tells me just as much as a warning emitted at
runtime. And a warning emitted at runtime is likely to scare my users
into thinking something is broken, leading to spurious or misleading bug
reports. There also does not appear to be general consensus that
modules should be added to stdlib if they are not widely used and
demanded, so I don't know when a module would be added to
__experimental__, anyway. The normal deprecation procedures (rarely
used as they are) seem to cover this, anyway.
Adding a new namespace separate from __future__ also just gives me
another thing to remember. Was the feature added to __experimental__ or
__future__? Also, it seems even less common that language features are
added on an experimental basis. When a language feature (new syntax or
semantics) goes in to the language, it is there for a long, long time.
If new features are added first to __experimental__ and then to
__future__ or the non-__experimental__ stdlib namespace, then I just
have to update all my code to keep using it. So I'm guaranteed extra
work whether the feature is successful and is adopted or if it fails and
is later removed. I'd rather not have to do the extra work in the
success case, at least, which is what the existing add-it-and-then-maybe
-(but-probably-not-)deprecate it approach gives me.
Jean-Paul
___
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/exarkun%40twistedmatrix.com
___
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
