Message196143
Actually, let me revise my rpevious comment. I think we should fake the new interface for now by adding a TreeEventBuilder that requires having its own TreeBuilder internally, instead of wrapping an arbitrary target. That way, we can avoid having to clean up the existing dependency of the C parser on the C-level TreeBuilder implementation.
Once this cleanup gets done, we can add the support for wrapping user defined targets as a feature.
So, basically, I propose to take the route that my TreeEventBuilder patch went, just with a simplified implementation. I'll see if I can cut down the patch to those essentials.
Would you be ok with something that uses the isinstance() hack in the parser? |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2013-08-25 15:16:07 | scoder | set | recipients:
+ scoder, jcea, ncoghlan, eli.bendersky, flox, python-dev |
2013-08-25 15:16:07 | scoder | set | messageid: <1377443767.04.0.103309700474.issue17741@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2013-08-25 15:16:07 | scoder | link | issue17741 messages |
2013-08-25 15:16:06 | scoder | create | |
|