This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author jaraco
Recipients cs-shadow, jaraco, lemburg
Date 2020-10-27.13:05:06
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1603803906.94.0.100014384552.issue42163@roundup.psfhosted.org>
In-reply-to
Content
Indeed, it was unexpected that consumers of the `uname_result` were using `_replace`. In fact, the focus of the tests is on ensuring that users are able to access the items by index, e.g. `uname()[0]`.

It should be possible to support `_replace` on the `uname_result` as found in Python 3.9+. The real question is - is it important enough to declare and restore support for this use case based on this one report (and likely handful of other cases), or would it be better to discourage use of `_replace` for `uname_result` and provide a straightforward workaround (to be documented here) for those use-cases to employ?

Marc, do you have an opinion?
History
Date User Action Args
2020-10-27 13:05:06jaracosetrecipients: + jaraco, lemburg, cs-shadow
2020-10-27 13:05:06jaracosetmessageid: <1603803906.94.0.100014384552.issue42163@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2020-10-27 13:05:06jaracolinkissue42163 messages
2020-10-27 13:05:06jaracocreate