Author ncoghlan
Recipients Trundle, alex, benjamin.peterson, brett.cannon, daniel.urban, dmalcolm, eltoder, georg.brandl, mark.dickinson, nadeem.vawda, ncoghlan, pitrou, rhettinger, santoso.wijaya, terry.reedy
Date 2011-03-28.03:52:34
SpamBayes Score 4.21069e-12
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <>
OK, I missed the fact that the new optimisation pass isn't run under PyCF_ONLY_AST.

However, as Eugene picked up, my concern is actually with the collapsing of Str/Num/Bytes/Ellipsis into the new Lit node, and the changes to the way None/True/False are handled. They're all changes that *make sense*, but would also likely cause a variety of AST manipulations to break. We definitely don't care when bytecode hacks break, but providing the ast module means that AST manipulation is officially supported.

However, the reason I bring up new constructs, is the fact that new constructs may break AST manipulation passes, even if the old structures are left intact - the AST visitor may miss (or misinterpret) things because it doesn't understand the meaning of the new nodes.

We may need to take this one back to python-dev (and get input from the other implementations as well). It's a fairly fundamental question when it comes to the structure of any changes.
Date User Action Args
2011-03-28 03:52:35ncoghlansetrecipients: + ncoghlan, brett.cannon, georg.brandl, rhettinger, terry.reedy, mark.dickinson, pitrou, nadeem.vawda, benjamin.peterson, alex, Trundle, dmalcolm, daniel.urban, santoso.wijaya, eltoder
2011-03-28 03:52:35ncoghlansetmessageid: <>
2011-03-28 03:52:34ncoghlanlinkissue11549 messages
2011-03-28 03:52:34ncoghlancreate