[Python-Dev] PEP 408 -- Standard library __preview__ package

[Mike Meyer]

Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:14:36 -0500
>Barry Warsaw <barry at 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.

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.