RetroSearch Browse

Thu Sep 28 16:37:16 CEST 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-September/069026.html

On Friday 29 September 2006 00:30, Jeremy Hylton wrote:
> On 9/23/06, Anthony Baxter <anthony at interlink.com.au> wrote:
> > I'd like to propose that the AST format returned by passing PyCF_ONLY_AST
> > to compile() get the same guarantee in maintenance branches as the
> > bytecode format - that is, unless it's absolutely necessary, we'll keep
> > it the same. Otherwise anyone trying to write tools to manipulate the AST
> > is in for a massive world of hurt.
> >
> > Anyone have any problems with this, or can it be added to PEP 6?
>
> It's possible we should poll developers of other Python
> implementations and find out if anyone has objections to supporting
> this AST format.  But in principle, it sounds like a good idea to me.

I think it's extremely likely that the AST format will change over time - 
with major releases. I'd just like to guarantee that we won't mess with it 
other than that.

Anthony
-- 
Anthony Baxter     <anthony at interlink.com.au>
It's never too late to have a happy childhood.

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-September/069026.html below:

[Python-Dev] AST structure and maintenance branches