Author p-ganssle
Recipients belopolsky, msimpasona, p-ganssle, terry.reedy
Date 2020-10-23.21:47:54
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
Even if it were accidental (and it wasn't — it was actually somewhat difficult to achieve), I'd still argue for not changing it in 3.9, because it would mean that pickles created in 3.9.(n+1) would not be readable in 3.9.n.

Still, I don't think I'd be convinced without some real-life use cases. The SO question is asking about the reasoning for this in the abstract — the poster noticed that we designed it this way and saw a possible objection to this, but it was one that we had considered and decided to make the trade-off a different way.

I informally asked many people about this, since it was by far the weirdest design decision made in that issue (I say that in the passive tense not to deflect from the fact that I made the decision, but to own the fact that it was weirder than any of the design decisions made by anyone else, either 😛), and generally they could not give me any concrete reasons it would break (but they also all counseled not to try to get too clever with pickling logic).

I think I'm happy with the decision if we remain in the realm of the abstract, but I recognize how weird it is, and I think if someone came up with a compelling workflow that this breaks, we could change it (in a feature release). This was specifically proposed to avoid backwards-compatibility problems, so it wouldn't be any more of a breakage to change it in future feature releases than it would have been to do it in 3.9.
Date User Action Args
2020-10-23 21:47:55p-gansslesetrecipients: + p-ganssle, terry.reedy, belopolsky, msimpasona
2020-10-23 21:47:55p-gansslesetmessageid: <>
2020-10-23 21:47:55p-gansslelinkissue42070 messages
2020-10-23 21:47:54p-gansslecreate