On Fri., May 24, 2019, 12:48 Batuhan Taskaya, <isidenti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > changing this will probably break code > It is why i'm suggesting making the real transition at 4.0 and adding a > future flag for now. > > And so you need to justify *why* you think that's acceptable > I dont know it is acceptable or not, i saw this issue triaged to stage > "patch required". AFAIK it means someone needs to write a patch for this > issue and i wrote. > It's a bit more subtle because obviously some of us disagree that there's an issue and there wasn't any discussion to see if there was consensus. Plus tests are typically requires first regardless. -Brett I'm > posting it here because i need to know do i have to write a pep or just > give bpo link to __future__ page. > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:34 PM Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:52 AM Batuhan Taskaya <isidenti...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> The bpo i referenced can explain it better. An example; >>> >>> def foo(): pass >>> assert foo.__code__.co_filename = >>> os.path.abspath(foo.__code__.co_filename) >>> >>> >> Do realize there's a reason that issue has been open for well over five >> years: changing this will probably break code. And so you need to justify >> *why* you think that's acceptable since Python has existed with these >> semantics on code objects for decades as this point. >> >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
