This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author eric.snow
Recipients cdosborn, eric.snow, ezio.melotti, georg.brandl, r.david.murray
Date 2013-10-10.16:10:45
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
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. :)
Date User Action Args
2013-10-10 16:10:45eric.snowsetrecipients: + eric.snow, georg.brandl, ezio.melotti, r.david.murray, cdosborn
2013-10-10 16:10:45eric.snowsetmessageid: <>
2013-10-10 16:10:45eric.snowlinkissue18764 messages
2013-10-10 16:10:45eric.snowcreate