First, lowering priority.

> I disagree that this is release-critical. I think it is desirable to
> say that the dbm modules support most of a dict-style interface,
> and I also think that it is factually correct to claim that they
> currently do.

Supporting only __getitem__, __setitem__, __delitem__, __contains__ and
keys is already "most of a dict-style interface"?  Only dumbdbm and
bsddb, which isn't in the core anymore, support more methods.

> The problem with the current documentation is that it apparently stopped
> documenting the "dict-style interface", in the sense
>   http://www.python.org/doc/2.5/lib/typesmapping.html
> did. Instead, the documentation now only documents the dict type itself.
> If a dict-style interface was specified, one would have to specify
> whether returning views from keys/values/items is part of the dict-style
> interface or not.

It should first be decided what a "dict-style interface" means in Python
3, then I can document it :)

However, for the dbm modules I would be in favor of only specifying the
four mentioned methods, as in the docstring of dbm/__init__.py, and not
claiming any more.