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 pablogsal
Recipients Dennis Sweeney, Guido.van.Rossum, Mark.Shannon, Yonatan Goldschmidt, ammar2, chris.jerdonek, corona10, erlendaasland, gvanrossum, hauntsaninja, pablogsal, petr.viktorin, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka
Date 2021-05-11.14:52:29
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
> It is very little effort to add back the old function, so that isn't the problem. It won't work properly, but it never did anyway. So I guess that's sort of compatible.

It won't work properly is an incompatible change. Before, if you extract all fields from a code object and pass it down to the constructor, everything will work.

> Maybe the best thing is to put a big red warning in the docs and hope that warns away people from using it?

I think code object constructors must be part of the private CAPI due to what we are experiencing. But again, this is something we cannot decide on this bpo issue. Either a python-dev thread needs to be open or a Steering Council request in the repo needs to be opened.
Date User Action Args
2021-05-11 14:52:29pablogsalsetrecipients: + pablogsal, gvanrossum, rhettinger, petr.viktorin, chris.jerdonek, Mark.Shannon, serhiy.storchaka, Guido.van.Rossum, ammar2, corona10, Dennis Sweeney, erlendaasland, Yonatan Goldschmidt, hauntsaninja
2021-05-11 14:52:29pablogsalsetmessageid: <>
2021-05-11 14:52:29pablogsallinkissue40222 messages
2021-05-11 14:52:29pablogsalcreate