Referring to my discussion on  and then on #python this afternoon.
A little background would help people to understand where this was coming from.
1. I write Python 2 code and have done zero Python-3 specific code. 2. I have always been using class Foo(object) so I do not know the new style is no longer required in Python 3. I feel "stupid" and "wrong" by thinking (object) is still a convention in Python 3. 3. Many Python 2 tutorials do not use object as the base class whether for historical reason, or lack of information/education, and can cause confusing to newcomers searching for answers when they consult the official documentation.
While Python 3 code no longer requires object be the base class for the new-style class definition, I believe (object) is still required if one has to write a 2-3 compatible code. But this was not explained or warned anywhere in Python 2 and Python 3 code, AFAIK. (if I am wrong, please correct me)
I propose the followings:
* It is desirable to state boldly to users that (object) is no longer needed in Python-3 **only** code and warn users to revert to (object) style if the code needs to be 2 and 3 compatible.
* In addition, Python 2 doc  should be fixed by introducing the new-style classes. This problem was noted a long long time ago according to .
* I would like to see warnings from suggested action item 1 on  and , for python 2 and 3 documentations.
* We are pushing toward Python 3, some years later we don't need to maintain both Python 2 and 3 code. And many people, especially the newcomers will probably have no need to maintain Python 2 and 3 compatible codes.
My answer to that is we need to be careful with marketing. First, it is a little embarrassing to assume and to find out the assumption is not entirely accurate. Secondly, Python 2 will not go away any time soon and most tutorials available on the Internet today are still written for Python 2. Furthermore, this CAN be a "gotcha" for new developers knowing only Python 3 writing Python 2 & 3 compatible code.
* Books can do a better job
I haven't actually reviewed/read any Python 3 books knowing most of my code should work without bothering Python 3-2 incompatibility yet. So I don't have an accurate answer, but a very very quick glance over a popular Python 3 book (I am not sure if naming it out is ethical or not so I am going to grey it out here) the book just writes class Foo: and doesn't note the different between 2 and 3 with classes. It is not wrong since the book is about programming in Python 3, NOT writing 2 and 3, but this is where the communication breaks. Docs and books don't give all the answers needed.
P.S. Sorry if I should've have asked on #python-dev first or made a ticket but I've decided to send to mailing list before making a bug ticket. First time!
Best, Yeuk Hon