On 22 Jan 2015, at 23:03, Neil Girdhar wrote:
> Thanks for taking a look. I looked at inspect and I can't see
> anything
> that needs to change since it's the caller rather than the receiver
> who has
> more options after this PEP.
You are probably right. And for calling via Signature.bind() your patch
takes care of business.
> Did you see anything in particular?
No, I was just using inspect.signature lately and reading the PEP
reminded me of it.
> Best,
>
> Neil
Servus,
Walter
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Walter Dörwald
> <walter at livinglogic.de>
> wrote:
>
>> On 20 Jan 2015, at 17:34, Neil Girdhar wrote:
>>
>>> My question first:
>>> test_ast is mostly generated code, but I can't find where it is
>>> being
>>> generated. I am pretty sure I know how to fix most of the
>>> introduced
>>> problems. Who is generating test_ast??
>>>
>>> Update:
>>>
>>> So far, I've done the following:
>>>
>>> Updated the patch to 3.5
>>> Fixed the grammar to accept final commas in argument lists always,
>>> and to
>>> work with the already implemented code.
>>> Fixed the ast to accept what it needs to accept and reject according
>>> to
>> the
>>> limitation laid down by Guido.
>>> Fixed the parsing library.
>>>
>>> Fixed these tests:
>>> test_ast.py
>>> test_extcall.py
>>> test_grammar.py
>>> test_syntax.py
>>> test_unpack_ex.py
>>>
>>> As far as I can tell, all I have left is to fix test_ast and
>>> possibly
>> write
>>> some more tests (there are already some new tests and some of the
>>> old
>>> negative tests expecting SyntaxError are now positive tests).
>>
>> inspect.signature might need an update.
>>
>> Servus,
>> Walter
>>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4