RetroSearch Browse

Thu Sep 28 16:42:15 CEST 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-September/069027.html

On 9/28/06, Anthony Baxter <anthony at interlink.com.au> wrote:
> 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.

Good point.  I'm fine with the change, then.

Jeremy

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-September/069027.html below:

[Python-Dev] AST structure and maintenance branches