It seems the consequences ofPEP 0448 weren't really thought through. :-/ (And BTW why isn't it in "What's new in Python 3.5"? I know there is a file with full details, but I guess this really should be notable enough.)    {0:1, **{0:2}, 0:3, 0:4}Do you know what is the value of that dict? And does it make sense to you? It surely doesn't make sense to me (though I understand the implementation). I know things are really subtle and even Guido gets it wrong (https://bugs.python.org/msg234413), even withoutPEP 0448, but this particular instance is horrible.ValueError would be perfect, I'd be ok with 4, I'd shrug on 1, I'd frown on 2, but I _scream_ on 3. Please fix this until it's too late and fictional "backward compatibility" starts to freeze the wrong behaviour.

New changeseta4df0fe62b46 by Benjamin Peterson in branch '3.5':set items in dict displays from left to right (closes#24569)https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/a4df0fe62b46New changeset75852d90c225 by Benjamin Peterson in branch 'default':merge 3.5 (#24569)https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/75852d90c225

Benjamin, you're my hero. :-)I'm not really at home in C source... is it possible that you have also changed    {0:1, 0:2}to be {0:2} (as opposed to {0:1} as it is now)? I'm completely fine with that and find it more logical (and as I said in the previous message, it matches BDFL's mental model, which is the real reference implementation of Python:), but I'm afraid backward compatibility zealots will ruin the fun.

Python 3.3.5 (default, Aug 19 2014, 23:45:33) [GCC 4.7.3] on linuxType "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.>>> {0:1, 0:2}{0: 2}Python 2.7.9 (default, Dec 24 2014, 23:52:11) [GCC 4.8.3] on linux2Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.>>> {0:1, 0:2}{0: 2}

Ah, so it was broken _only_ on 3.5. That should teach me not to uninstall Py3.x as soon as Py3.x+1 comes out. :-)Ok, thank you very much.