On 25 April 2015 at 17:58, Larry Hastings <larry at hastings.org> wrote:
>
> On 04/24/2015 09:45 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> Ah, I misread Tal's suggestion. Using unary + is an even neater approach.
>
>
> Not exactly. The way I figure it, the best way to achieve this with unary
> plus is to ast.parse it (as we currently do) and then modify the parse tree.
> That works but it's kind of messy.
>
> My main objection to this notation is that that set objects don't support +.
> The union operator for sets is |.
Good point.
> I've prototyped a hack allowing
> str(accept|={NoneType})
> I used the tokenize module to tokenize, modify, and untokenize the converter
> invocation. Works fine. And since augmented assignment is (otherwise)
> illegal in expressions, it's totally unambiguous. I think if we do it at
> all it should be with that notation.
I'd say start without it, but if it gets annoying, then we have this
in our back pocket as a potential fix.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
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