Message306760
If we do decide to do this, I'm inclined to eventually make the change at the Grammar level rather than the AST level.
Current:
comparison: expr (comp_op expr)*
comp_op: '<'|'>'|'=='|'>='|'<='|'<>'|'!='|'in'|'not' 'in'|'is'|'is' 'not'
Future:
comparison: expr (comp_op expr)* | (containment_check)
comp_op: '<'|'>'|'=='|'>='|'<='|'<>'|'!='|'is'|'is' 'not'
containment_check: ('in'|'not' 'in') expr
However, we'd still need an intermediate step like your PR in order to emit SyntaxWarning while still retaining the current semantics. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2017-11-22 23:18:19 | ncoghlan | set | recipients:
+ ncoghlan, serhiy.storchaka |
2017-11-22 23:18:19 | ncoghlan | set | messageid: <1511392699.69.0.213398074469.issue32055@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2017-11-22 23:18:19 | ncoghlan | link | issue32055 messages |
2017-11-22 23:18:19 | ncoghlan | create | |
|