Eric Snow added the comment: Though I can't speak regarding the patch, your justification for breaking backward compatibility seems good enough to me (but I may not be the best judge :). However, backward compatibility is a funny thing. I've spent not insignificant time thinking about it with regards to the import system and PEP 451 particularly.
The problem is that, while there may not be much code using a feature now, there may be people that start to use it later under an earlier system Python (e.g. 3.2 or 3.3). Then when their system upgrades Python to 3.4 their code breaks. So a backward incompatible change can have a more adverse impact than is measurable right now. That's a subtle but significant reason behind our aversion to breaking backward compatibility, I've come to realize. Of course, doing so is still an option if the benefit outweighs the risk/cost. It sounds like you are comfortable with the risk here, and I trust your judgement. :) ---------- nosy: +eric.snow _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue18764> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
