-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Misleading __version__ attribute of modules in standard library #76007
Comments
Several modules of the standard library (at least The string is the same for Python 2.7-3.6: >>> import re, csv; print(re.__version__, csv.__version__)
2.2.1 1.0 while documentation indicates changes in the modules. Semantic versioning (recommended by PEP-440) suggests that at least minor version should change in such case. I suspect it to be a "code fossil" which may be removed according to PEP-396. |
I would support just removing the version attributes for csv and re. |
+1 for removing __version__ on all stdlib modules which are not externally maintained. |
+1 from me for dropping these, and noting which modules were affected in the Porting section of the 3.7 What's New (I'd be surprised if anyone was depending on them existing, but it doesn't hurt to mention it, and may help if someone is trying to figure out what changed) |
Please do leave version in the decimal module where it has a precise meaning, tracking a particular version of the spec that was implemented and tested. |
The version in distutils is derived from sys.version and should be left as is too. Thanks! |
PR for removing __version__ from mock: #17977 |
@encukou The issue seems to have been resolved. Can we close the issue? |
There are still a lot of modules with
Note that nowadays, the proper way to remove an attribute is with a deprecation period using module |
I just migrated |
Related issue: |
Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.
Show more details
GitHub fields:
bugs.python.org fields:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: