survey: is shelve broken? should it be fixed?

[Martin v. Löwis]

Roman Suzi <rnd at onego.ru> writes:

> I think it is better to fix and not looking for backward compatibility!
> It will not be seen on the background of other major changes to Python.
> So, no smart is needed, IMHO.

I disagree. The past tells us that great care is needed for backwards
compatibility.

I wouldn't call the feature 'smart', but rather describe somehow what
it does, but I agree that it should be done through an optional
parameter. Applications that use that feature need to explicitly
declare that they do. Not specifying the parameter would might cause a
DeprecationWarning. Then, after some time, the DeprecationWarning
could be removed, and the default be changed.

Regards,
Martin