Jason R. Coombs <jar...@jaraco.com> added the comment:
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? ---------- nosy: +lemburg -rhettinger versions: +Python 3.10 _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue42163> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
