[Numpy-discussion] Silent DeprecationWarnings under Python 2.7 onwards

Peter numpy-discussion@maubp.freeserve.co...
Fri Sep 17 06:01:10 CDT 2010

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Benjamin Root <ben.root@ou.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Peter
>>> http://docs.python.org/library/warnings.html#updating-code-for-new-versions-of-python
>>> This makes sense to me for deprecation warnings from Python
>>> itself or the standard library - after all, Python 2.7 is the last of the
>>> Python 2.x series.
>> The reason for the change is explained in the paragraph you link to, 2.7
>> being the final minor release in the 2.x series isn't it.

I didn't intend to suggest it was the official reason, rather this is
my opinion:
Given Python 2.7 is the last Python 2.x release, deprecation warnings from
Python itself and the stdlib are only relevant to porting to Python 3, so having
them silent makes sense for end users.

>> There are many other packages/programs built on numpy, the user/developer
>> distinction can be made in the same way as for Python itself. I fail to see
>> a reason not to follow the lead of the Python core developers here.
>> Cheers,
>> Ralf
> I have to agree a bit with Peter.  I do understand the rationale of Python's
> position, however, I have to wonder what is the point of DeprecationWarning
> if it doesn't get displayed?  The warning is supposed to give a heads-up to
> the developer to modify their code.
> Now, the argument can be made that a python developer should know to run
> python with those warnings unmuted.  And I would agree for "true", career
> programmers.  However, numpy/scipy/matplotlib have become environments unto
> themselves, catered to converts from Matlab, R, S+ and other such
> languages.  I would argue that many of the "developers" are not typical
> programmers with proper development habits/skills.  Many (myself included)
> are graduate students in scientific fields unrelated to computer science.  I
> have to wonder how many of them would even be aware of the differences
> between python versions  (or even which version they are using!).
> Anyway, my point is that the deprecation warnings are very valuable to
> display and that we need to keep in mind the audience that SciPy has.  Maybe
> we don't necessarily turn them on by default (somehow), but maybe the
> documentation should highly recommend that they get turned on, thereby
> raising awareness on the part of the user.

We can make the warnings noisy by introducing a NumPyDeprecationWarning
(which must not subclass DreprecationWarning as that would make it silent).
This isn't very elegant though, and would mean existing scripts already
using the warnings module to silence DreprecationWarning may need

At very least, I agree the NumPy/SciPy documentation should mention
this issue of silent DeprecationWarnings on Python 2.7 (and whichever
of the Python 3 series do this).

> There is a side-benefit to mentioning the muted warnings issue in the
> documentation.  If a developer later complains that a feature was removed
> without any deprecation notices, we could simply point to the documentation
> and say that we recommended turning the warnings on.

It is an excuse, but at least documentation would have warned people.


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list