> Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > > [Samuele Pedroni] > > > I'm consindering the possibility of adding a special mode to jython > > > (based on hooks and on porting the CPython tools/compiler) in which > > > you can retrieve the PVM bytecode of code objects, then there would > > > be still to make PyChecker java classes aware, but it could run > > > under jython. (Don't know when I will get at doing this) > > > > But is it really a good idea to codify PVM bytecode as the way to do > > introspection? I'd much rather have a standard library API that > > parses a module and gives you a list of variables, functions, classes, > > etc., and lets you drill down into the symbol table of each of those. > > (I realize more is needed, you need to be able to inspect every > > statement too -- that can be done by providing access to an AST.) > > While it would make my life easier to modify jython, I tend to agree > with Guido. Ideally, checker would use ASTs. I really want checker > to work with jython, but it's too much work to do right now. > > The reason why I chose to use the PVM bytecode was because it was > faster and easier to get something. I started trying to use ASTs > but it would have taken a lot longer to get anywhere. > > I would like to support pychecker under jython, just not sure of > the best or fastest way to get there. There have been a misunderestanding and don't like at all to play the role of the ominous sinner, ignorant of language design. I was just proposing a hack, not codifying anything at all, vs. what at the moment is just discussing about The Right Thing, aka wishful thinking. regards, Samuele Pedroni.
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