Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > > So, it's a very common idiom. > > "Common" doesn't imply "correct" or "supported". There are plenty of > other packages/modules who don't import their subpackages/submodules > during initialization. Unless explicitly supported by the module, > using a submodule without explicitly importing it is relying on > undefined behavior.
Yes, you are technically right. But this is an idealized view of what backwards compatibility means in the real world. Well, let's see if people complain after 3.4 is released, anyway. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue20784> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
