On 11-10-24 04:28 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>> I think that is a real shame - it seems to be gratuitous breakage for almost
>> zero benefit. That issue shows that Trac makes heavy use of .warn, I've use
>> .warn almost exclusively for many years, and code.google.com shows it is
>> used
>> extensively in the wild.
> Okay, but it's easy enough to change, and people are getting a reasonable
> amount of time to deal with it.
I'd have to echo Mark's sentiment here. There is a *lot* of (fairly
old) code around that uses .warn, and I'd wager even a lot of new code
written by old programmers (such as myself) that uses it. Breaking it
to avoid having an undocumented method seems wrong; suggest just adding
documentation:
"logger.warn(...) -- an alias to logger.warning provided for
backward compatibility"
>> Is there still a chance to reconsider?
> I'm not dogmatic about things like this; warn() is just a hangover from a
> long time ago and bit of a nit, that's all. I suppose I should have removed
> it when 3.0 was released, but it went under my radar at that time.
>
> Hence my post here, to get feedback from logging users about this proposed
> change.
I actually consider .warning() a nit :) . After all, it's 3 extra
characters :) , and *who* actually reads documentation instead of just
poking around and finding the shortest-named method in the instance?
Anyway, I personally don't see this as worth the breakage.
Just my $0.02,
Mike
--
________________________________________________
Mike C. Fletcher
Designer, VR Plumber, Coder
http://www.vrplumber.com
http://blog.vrplumber.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
