"Fred L. Drake, Jr." <fdrake@acm.org> writes:
> Michael Hudson writes:
> > 1) Is there anything is the standard library that does the equivalent
> > of
>
> No, but I have a chunk of code that does in a different way.
I'm guessing everyone who's played with the parser much does, hence
the suggestion. I agree my implementation is probably not optimal - I
just threw it together as quickly as I could!
> Where in the library do you think it belongs? The compiler package
> sounds like the best place, but that's not installed by default.
> (Jeremy, is that likely to change soon?)
Actually, I'd have thought the parser module would be most natural,
but that would probably mean doing the _module.c trick, and it's
probably not worth the bother. OTOH, it seems that wrapping any given
extension module in a python module is becoming if anything the norm,
so maybe it is.
Cheers,
M.
--
I don't remember any dirty green trousers.
-- Ian Jackson, ucam.chat
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