I am at a loss for words.

On Oct 12, 2017 6:27 PM, "Nick Coghlan" <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:

>
> Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> added the comment:
>
> If a proposed standard library API is sufficiently stable that the folks
> proposing it are reluctant to emit a runtime warning about any remaining
> stability risks, then I think it's reasonable to expect them to propose it
> as non-provisional and accept the related backwards compatibility
> obligations.
>
> We have past examples of our being able to cope with that approach, such
> as when contextlib.nested turned out to be broken at a design level, so we
> deprecated it, removed it, and replaced it with a combination of
> contextlib.ExitStack and native support for multiple context managers in
> with statements.
>
> Framing that in different terms: with PEP 411 as currently written, the
> benefits of instability accrue to the API publisher and willing early
> adopters, while the costs appear as negative externalities affecting folks
> that would prefer not to care about the API at all until it is covered by
> the regular backwards compatibility guarantees.
>
> This RFE proposes to internalise some of those costs (in the form of a
> required runtime warning for any future provisional APIs), such that API
> publishers ask themselves "Do I *really* need this whole API to be
> provisional? Can I restructure it so only selected clearly identifiable
> parts are provisional or private, and the rest are covered by regular
> stability guarantees?" and early adopters ask themselves "Do I really want
> to make this a *required* dependency? Perhaps I can make it optional
> somehow, so folks that aren't using these features won't get the warning?"
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <https://bugs.python.org/issue31742>
> _______________________________________
>