Yury Selivanov <yseliva...@gmail.com> added the comment:
> Source? I could not find a good source, sorry. I remember I had a complaint in uvloop to support negative timeouts, but I can't trace it. That said, I also distinctly remember seeing code (and writing such code myself) that performs computation on timeouts and does not care if the end value goes below 0. It might be a weak data point but it's still a valid one. > IMHO, deprecating and then removing support for negative argument in > `asyncio.sleep()` is very much less breaking compared to issues #36921 and > #36373 . Breaking code/APIs always has a price and we always try to have a very good explanation "why" we want to bother ourselves and users to break backwards compat. This one is not worth it IMHO. We have more breaking API changes that are more substantial coming in future versions of asyncio. So I try to limit the impact by only breaking what's really necessary. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue39698> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
