This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

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 <1301284355.65.0.461171652608.issue11549@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
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.
History
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: <1301284355.65.0.461171652608.issue11549@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2011-03-28 03:52:34ncoghlanlinkissue11549 messages
2011-03-28 03:52:34ncoghlancreate