➜

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.

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