This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

classification
Title: Remove 'python -U' or document it
Type: Stage: patch review
Components: Versions: Python 2.7, Python 2.6
process
Status: closed Resolution: fixed
Dependencies: Superseder:
Assigned To: barry Nosy List: barry, georg.brandl, lemburg, loewis
Priority: normal Keywords: needs review, patch

Created on 2010-02-03 17:35 by barry, last changed 2022-04-11 14:56 by admin. This issue is now closed.

Files
File name Uploaded Description Edit
7847.patch barry, 2010-02-04 10:27
7847-2.patch barry, 2010-02-05 18:21
Messages (9)
msg98791 - (view) Author: Barry A. Warsaw (barry) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-02-03 17:35
Python 2.x supports a -U flag which has the effect largely the same as 'from __future__ import unicode_literals'.  However -U is undocumented anywhere except import.c.  We should either remove -U support from Python 2.7 or document it (and indicate in that documentation that the future import is preferred).
msg98792 - (view) Author: Marc-Andre Lemburg (lemburg) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-02-03 17:55
Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
> 
> New submission from Barry A. Warsaw <barry@python.org>:
> 
> Python 2.x supports a -U flag which has the effect largely the same as 'from __future__ import unicode_literals'.  However -U is undocumented anywhere except import.c.  We should either remove -U support from Python 2.7 or document it (and indicate in that documentation that the future import is preferred).

+1 on removing it.

It has been deliberately been undocumented since Python 2.2
in order to be able to phase out its use and finally remove it.
msg98795 - (view) Author: Martin v. Löwis (loewis) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-02-03 19:47
I fail to see the point. This bug was fixed in Python 3. Why risk breaking something in the last 2.x release?
msg98824 - (view) Author: Barry A. Warsaw (barry) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-02-04 10:27
This is really all I'm thinking about.
msg98856 - (view) Author: Martin v. Löwis (loewis) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-02-04 20:58
I'm +0 on such a change - I don't think it makes anything better (it will only cause more users asking what this is, why it was added, and demand that something should be done about it).

Feel free to commit it, anyway.
msg98862 - (view) Author: Georg Brandl (georg.brandl) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-02-05 01:00
If you document -X, you should also document -J.
msg98891 - (view) Author: Barry A. Warsaw (barry) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-02-05 18:21
Good point Georg.  See updated patch.
msg98892 - (view) Author: Barry A. Warsaw (barry) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-02-05 18:22
Martin, thanks.
msg98894 - (view) Author: Barry A. Warsaw (barry) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-02-05 18:52
trunk: r77992
py26: r77993
History
Date User Action Args
2022-04-11 14:56:57adminsetgithub: 52095
2010-02-05 18:52:46barrysetstatus: open -> closed
resolution: fixed
messages: + msg98894
2010-02-05 18:22:18barrysetmessages: + msg98892
2010-02-05 18:21:48barrysetfiles: + 7847-2.patch

messages: + msg98891
2010-02-05 01:00:29georg.brandlsetnosy: + georg.brandl
messages: + msg98862
2010-02-04 20:58:55loewissetassignee: loewis -> barry
messages: + msg98856
2010-02-04 10:27:07barrysetfiles: + 7847.patch
versions: + Python 2.6
messages: + msg98824

keywords: + needs review, patch
stage: patch review
2010-02-03 19:47:58loewissetmessages: + msg98795
2010-02-03 17:55:02lemburgsetnosy: + lemburg
messages: + msg98792
2010-02-03 17:45:32georg.brandlsetassignee: loewis

nosy: + loewis
2010-02-03 17:35:06barrycreate