Message112643
If we merge the functionality in a single class with a new name then I guess that is fine as it will simplify the documentation rather than complexify it (good word hey). We still need to *mention* the old names so that people finding them in old code can find an up to date reference on them.
Here's what I don't understand about Fred's difficulty with replacing ConfigParser with the sane implementation.
After we deprecate ConfigParser as it is now we have two choices.
* delete the ConfigParser name - breaking *all* code that uses it and has not been updated
* point the name at what is currently called SafeConfigParser - causing a slight risk of incompatibility but likely *improving* most code that hasn't been updated
I don't see how the first option could *in any way* be preferable to the second. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2010-08-03 18:13:37 | michael.foord | set | recipients:
+ michael.foord, fdrake, brett.cannon, georg.brandl, rhettinger, eric.araujo, r.david.murray, till, lukasz.langa |
2010-08-03 18:13:37 | michael.foord | set | messageid: <1280859217.79.0.303503621945.issue6517@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2010-08-03 18:13:35 | michael.foord | link | issue6517 messages |
2010-08-03 18:13:34 | michael.foord | create | |
|