Neil Hodgson wrote: >>> There is a cost to the change as there will be two libraries that >>> have to be known to understand code. ... > At that point I was thinking about os.path and path.py. Readers will > encounter code that uses both of these libraries.
Okay, granted. I guess this is the same as in any other case of deprecation (e.g. some people still have to work with code that uses apply() or string module methods). > Peter Hansen: >> We've mandated use of path.py internally for all projects because >> we've noticed (especially with non-expert Python programmers... i.e. >> junior and intermediate types, and senior types new to Python) a >> decrease in errors. > > A list of fault reports in this area would be useful evidence. Unfortunately, in an agile group such reports tend not to exist, and in many cases the errors are caught by a partner even as they are created, or by someone refactoring the code a day later. I have only anecdotal evidence, I'm afraid, unless I start digging through past subversion revisions in several projects. -Peter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
