On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 2:36 AM Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> > I have seen multiple discussions where somebody wants to deprecate a
> > useless function but somebody else complains that we cannot do that
> > because the function in question cannot be removed (because of
Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2019-07-17 02:34, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > I prefer removal for ease of maintenance (people
> > always want to update code even if it's deprecated), and to help make sure
> > people who
> > don't read the docs but discover something via the REPL or something and
> >
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:07 PM Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2019-07-16 15:33, Inada Naoki wrote:
> >> We currently have a deprecation policy saying that functions deprecated
> >> in version N cannot be removed before version N+2. That's a reasonable
> >> policy but some deprecation purists
On 2019-07-17 02:34, Brett Cannon wrote:
I prefer removal for ease of maintenance (people always want to update code
even if it's deprecated), and to help make sure people who don't read the docs
but discover something via the REPL or something and don't run with warnings on
do not
Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> I have seen multiple discussions where somebody wants to deprecate a
> useless function but somebody else complains that we cannot do that
> because the function in question cannot be removed (because of backwards
> compatibility). See
On 2019-07-16 15:33, Inada Naoki wrote:
We currently have a deprecation policy saying that functions deprecated
in version N cannot be removed before version N+2. That's a reasonable
policy but some deprecation purists insist that it MUST (instead of MAY)
be removed in version N+2. Following
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 6:46 PM Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> I have seen multiple discussions where somebody wants to deprecate a
> useless function but somebody else complains that we cannot do that
> because the function in question cannot be removed (because of backwards
> compatibility). See
