Author takluyver
Recipients Devin Jeanpierre, barry, eric.araujo, eric.snow, mark.dickinson, martin.panter, mbussonn, meador.inge, michael.foord, petri.lehtinen, serhiy.storchaka, takluyver, terry.reedy, trent, vstinner
Date 2018-05-18.08:21:22
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1526631682.82.0.682650639539.issue12486@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
I agree, it's not a good design, but it's what's already there; I just want to ensure that it won't be removed without a deprecation cycle. My PR makes no changes to behaviour, only to documentation and tests.

This and issue 9969 have both been around for several years. A new tokenize API is clearly not at the top of anyone's priority list - and that's fine. I'd rather have *some* unicode API today than a promise of a nice unicode API in the future. And it doesn't preclude adding a better API later, it just means that the existing API would have to have a deprecation cycle.
History
Date User Action Args
2018-05-18 08:21:22takluyversetrecipients: + takluyver, barry, terry.reedy, mark.dickinson, vstinner, Devin Jeanpierre, trent, eric.araujo, michael.foord, meador.inge, eric.snow, petri.lehtinen, martin.panter, serhiy.storchaka, mbussonn
2018-05-18 08:21:22takluyversetmessageid: <1526631682.82.0.682650639539.issue12486@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2018-05-18 08:21:22takluyverlinkissue12486 messages
2018-05-18 08:21:22takluyvercreate