Mark Borgerding added the comment:
@serhiy.storchaka Thanks for the link to issue25054 to clarify this change was
not done solely for aesthetics.
Hopefully that will mollify others like me who find their way to this
discussion as they try to figure out why their code broke with a new
Mark Borgerding added the comment:
So third-party code was knowingly broken to satisfy an aesthetic notion that
substitution should be more like iteration.
Would not a FutureWarning have been a kinder way to stage this implementation?
A foolish consistency, indeed.
--
nosy: +Mark
Mark Borgerding added the comment:
I'm not trying to disrespect anyone: not users nor certainly Python developers.
I have loved Python since I learned it in 2001. I was merely trying to
respond to what seemed like an automatic rejection of changing legacy behavior.
I certainly agree
Mark Borgerding added the comment:
@pitrou I don't necessarily agree that "current behavior can't be changed".
One major selling point of exceptions is that they cannot be accidentally
ignored. The exception is how the current threading.Thread ignores them.
You are correct tha
