[Python-Dev] folding cElementTree behind ElementTree in 3.3 (original) (raw)

Brett Cannon brett at python.org
Tue Feb 14 16:38:15 CET 2012

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 23:16, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at gmail.com> wrote: > An open question remains on whether to deprecate cElementTree, now that this > change is in place. > > Currently in 3.3 the whole cElementTree module is: > > # Deprecated alias for xml.etree.ElementTree > > from xml.etree.ElementTree import * > > Would it be alright to issue a DeprecationWarning if this module is > imported? Then hopefully a couple of releases after 3.3 we can just dump it.

What do we really gain by dumping it, though? Just add a CPython specific test that ensures: for key, value in xml.etree.ElementTree.dict.items(): self.assertIs(getattr(xml.etree.cElementTree, key), value) and then ignore it for the next decade or so. Programmatic deprecation is a significant imposition on third party developers and should really be reserved for APIs that actively encourage writing broken code (e.g. contextlib.nested) or are seriously problematic for python-dev to maintain. For cleanup stuff, documented deprecation is sufficient. Something that might be worth doing (although it would likely scare the peanut gallery) is to create a PEP 4000 to record the various cleanup tasks (like dropping cElementTree) that are being deliberately excluded from the 3.x series.

I honestly think a PEP 4000 is a good idea simply to document stuff that we are allowing to exist in Python 3 but don't think people should necessarily be using in order to follow best practices (e.g. this, ditching optparse, no more % string formatting, etc.). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20120214/cc5a070b/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list