"as" keyword woes

[Alan G Isaac]

Warren DeLano wrote:
> what I can't understand is the decision to break 2.6 instead of 3.0.  2.x was
> supposed to remain backwards compatible, with the thinking that 2.x
> would be maintained in parallel for quite some time.  3.x was supposed
> to be the compatibility break.


I do not understand why anyone would object
to this perfectly cogent complaint of Warren's.
Even if the deprecation warnings had not been
invisible, the complaint would be valid.

Alan Isaac