Message385792
| Author | Anthony Sottile |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Andrew.C, Anthony Sottile, Jim Fasarakis-Hilliard, amaury.forgeotdarc, berker.peksag, djmitche, effbot, kirkshorts, meador.inge, pablogsal, serhiy.storchaka, superluser |
| Date | 2021-01-27.17:18:04 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1611767884.2.0.970913821693.issue3353@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
you already have that right now because the `tokenize` module is exposed. (except that every change to the tokenization requires it to be implemented once in C and once in python) it's much more frustrating when the two differ as well I don't think all the internals of the C tokenization need to be exposed, my main goals would be: - expose enough information to reimplement Lib/tokenize.py - replace Lib/tokenize.py with the C tokenizer and the reasons would be: - eliminate the (potential) drift and complexity between the two - get a fast tokenizer Unlike the AST, the tokenization changes much less frequently (last major addition I can remember is the `@` operator We can hide almost all of the details of the tokenization behind an opaque struct and getter functions |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2021-01-27 17:18:04 | Anthony Sottile | set | recipients: + Anthony Sottile, effbot, amaury.forgeotdarc, djmitche, kirkshorts, meador.inge, berker.peksag, serhiy.storchaka, superluser, Andrew.C, Jim Fasarakis-Hilliard, pablogsal |
| 2021-01-27 17:18:04 | Anthony Sottile | set | messageid: <1611767884.2.0.970913821693.issue3353@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| 2021-01-27 17:18:04 | Anthony Sottile | link | issue3353 messages |
| 2021-01-27 17:18:04 | Anthony Sottile | create | |