Collin Winter schrieb:
> What's inconsistent about it? That classes are being used for the
> _ast.{Add,Sub,Mult,etc} names?
Exactly. These aren't names - they are nodes in the tree. All nodes
are instances of _ast.AST.
> I don't see the need for both _ast.Add and _ast.Add.singleton or
> _ast.add or however else it might be spelled. I'd be perfectly happy
> doing something like "_ast.Add = object()" (when initializing the _ast
> module), so long as I can write "node.op is _ast.Add", "node.op ==
> _ast.Add", or something equally brief and to-the-point.
Would you like to do the same for Pass, Break, Continue, and Ellipsis?
They are also "just names". If you make _ast.Add the entry in the
tree itself, why not _ast.Break? Or, if you have a way to deal with
_ast.Break, why can't the same way work for _ast.Add?
Regards,
Martin
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