Guido (msg416498)
> Surely the bigger issue is that the contents of new_code itself must be totally different? Also there are other tables that need to be adjusted if you really do change co_code, e.g. the debugging tables.

Do you consider that .replace() must reject changing co_code if other tables are not updated?

Debugging tables are not strictly required just to *execute* code, no?

If you consider that the caller *must* update co_exceptiontable, replace() must raise an exception in this case, to prevent creating a code object which would behave in a strange way (broken exception handling).

If someone really wants testing an empty exception table just for fun, it would still be possible to pass co_exceptiontable=b''.

My concern is more about people upgrading to Python 3.11 and who "suddenly" don't get their exceptions handled anymore. I would prefer catching such bug at the replace() call, rather than having to execute the code (and only notice the bug in production? oops).