GeezerVison

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Raymond Hettinger <python at rcn.com> wrote:
>>> Nick writes:
>>>>
>>>> M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>>>> > I don't think that an administrative problem such as forward-
>>>> > porting patches to 3.x warrants breakage in the 2.x branch.
>>>> >
>>>> > After all, the renaming was approached for Python 3.0 and not
>>>> > 2.6 *because* it introduces major breakage.
>>>> >
>>>> > AFAIR, the discussion on the stdlib-sig also didn't include the
>>>> > plan to backport such changes to 2.6. Otherwise, we would have
>>>> > hashed them out there.
>>>>
>>>> I think MAL is 100% correct here (and I expect Raymond will chime in to
>>>> support him at some point as well).
>>>
>>> And until then, a +1 for MAL's position from me as well.  2.x should be
>>> quite conservative about such changes...
>>
>> I concur.
>
> And a "me too" post about being conservative by default as well.
>

I will update the PEP some time today. I think if we take MAL's idea
of doing the __dict__.update() trick and suppress the Py3K warnings
then it should be able to keep the warnings (it will require a very
specific filter). Otherwise the Py3K warnings will just have to go.

-Brett