py3k concerns. An example

[Kay Schluehr]

On 18 Apr., 23:09, Matimus <mccre... at gmail.com> wrote:
> The reason it doesn't work is that you are unpacking the dictionary
> with **, and you have done nothing to define any keys or define a
> length.

This is a non-issue. The class derives from dict; it has all the
desired attributes. It is also not a problem in particular because
these properties are not requested by format ( at least not in the
code I have examined which was admittedly just a critical section that
caused the exception ).

> Adding to that... don't worry about py3k. Nobody is forcing you to
> switch. In fact, you are encouraged not to until you are comfortable.
> Py3k won't _break_ your code. You wrote the code for Python 2.x use it
> in 2.x. Python 2.x probably has a good 5-10 years remaining.

These advices start to get annoying.

Software hardly ever exists in isolation for the sake of the beauty of
the algorithm but is supplementary to a large framework/engine/
library. So if e.g. Django switches to 3 everyone who works with it
has to switch sooner or later as well or lose track otherwise, no
matter how long Python 1.5.2 or Python 2.5.2 or whatever version will
be maintained. If Pythons code base becomes fragmented it will be
harmful and affect almost everyones work.