On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Raymond Hettinger <python@rcn.com> wrote:
Nick writes:
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
I don't think that an administrative problem such as forward- porting patches to 3.x warrants breakage in the 2.x branch.
After all, the renaming was approached for Python 3.0 and not 2.6 *because* it introduces major breakage.
AFAIR, the discussion on the stdlib-sig also didn't include the plan to backport such changes to 2.6. Otherwise, we would have hashed them out there.
I think MAL is 100% correct here (and I expect Raymond will chime in to support him at some point as well).
And until then, a +1 for MAL's position from me as well. 2.x should be quite conservative about such changes...
I concur.
And a "me too" post about being conservative by default as well.
I will update the PEP some time today. I think if we take MAL's idea of doing the __dict__.update() trick and suppress the Py3K warnings then it should be able to keep the warnings (it will require a very specific filter). Otherwise the Py3K warnings will just have to go. -Brett