On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
