>You're assuming that breaking backwards compatibility only has a fixed cost and that therefore you should try to break as many things as possible because it co

>You're assuming that breaking backwards compatibility only has a fixed cost and that therefore you should try to break as many things as possible because it costs "nothing". Of course not. The point is more understanding where the Python2/3 style boundary lies and what changes which might benefit the language are on each side of it. I doubt this is the least impactful breaking change they could have made, and there are others of a similar size which haven't been included - why?