How standard is the standard library?

[steve.leach]

Newbie question: Looking through my stack of books and various on-line
references, I have seen several libraries and library functions listed
as depreciated.

Is there a road map or concrete list of what parts of the standard
library are to be considered reliable and permanent? Coming from C, I
am used to library functions being set in stone.

Can I reasonably expect that code using, for instance xml.dom.minidom
will still work in 10 years?

Do all depreciated libraries print warnings when they are imported? I
see that if I print xmllib, I get the message "The xmllib module is
obsolete. Use xml.sax instead." Is this behavior followed
consistently, to give a "this code might not work come this time next
year" warning?

[Christos TZOTZIOY Georgiou]

Re: How standard is the standard library?

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:43:15 -0400, rumours say that "steve.leac h"
<stevenaleach@m ac.com> might have written:
[color=blue]
>Newbie question: Looking through my stack of books and various on-line
>references, I have seen several libraries and library functions listed
>as depreciated.
>
>Is there a road map or concrete list of what parts of the standard
>library are to be considered reliable and permanent? Coming from C, I
>am used to library functions being set in stone.[/color]

[snip]

You didn't mention any reading of PEP 4 (which would be obvious by a
simple google search), so take a look at this:

http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0004.html

--
TZOTZIOY, I speak England very best.
"Be strict when sending and tolerant when receiving." (from RFC1958)
I really should keep that in mind when talking with people, actually...