issue6964 is closed, so this is a reminder that discussion over the actual issue is not finished yet.

What is the issue that you are reporting here? 

If you think there is an issue with Python, please state explicitly what the issue is. I think issue 6964 was invalid to begin with: it complained that the new module is no longer, but deletion of the new module was intentional.

You're mistaken. issue6964 is not about deleting `new` module in Python 3, it is about the 2to3 tool skipping this fact without warning.

It was answered in the previous message by Georg, on the related issue:

http://bugs.python.org/issue6964#msg93032
> Bottom line: move over to the types module *before* running 2to3.

(the thread is very short, and clearly states that there's no bug)

From the user point of view that's the same as saying for optparse:

Bottom line: move over to the argparse module *before* running 2to3.

Bottom line: The fact that 2to3 isn't capable to fix "import new" automatically doesn't mean it should not warn that this code should be fixed manually.

It does mean exactly that. 2to3 is not designed or intended to ever issue warnings. So if your request is that it should issue a warning, I'm closing it as "won't fix".

The documentation for porting is already clear about using "-3" switch.
http://docs.python.org/dev/howto/pyporting.html#eliminate-3-warnings

The argparse module is different because it is not in the stdlib in 2.6, and you can stay with optparse if you write code compatible with all versions between 2.6 and 3.3.

My request is that after running 2to3 my code still doesn't work in Python 3.

Florent: It is the same. "new" module just doesn't need replacement, because its functionality is in the language, therefore it is no different saying.

Please don't reopen issues.

IIUC, your request is not "should issue a warning", but "2to3 should make sure that the resulting code runs on Python 3".

It is beyond the scope of 2to3 to provide such guarantees. Users are required to test the conversion result, as it cannot be perfect.

So with the scope of this issue changed (again!!!!), the issue still won't be fixed.

If somebody contributed a fixer that converted the new module in 2to3, I might be in favor of integrating it (but others still may not).

> Please don't reopen issues.

"Please don't ask for such silly stuff". You can understand the reason why this issue was opened, so why do you keep closing it if the "issue is not resolved"? 


The scope of this issue never changed, Martin. If you follow the user story, it is still the same original "user issue" or bad user experience with 2to3 tool.

It is fine if you're not going to work on a fix, but that's NOT the reason to close the issue. The proper fix would be to explain why you think there is nobody except yourself who can fix that, or provide the guarantees that the fix won't be accepted.