Jeremy Hylton wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 1:38 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thomas Lee wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>> This leaves us with a few options:
>>>
>>
>> 5. Reuse/Abuse Num(object) for arbitrary constants.
>> AFAICT, this should work out of the box.
>>
>>
> Eek. It *does* seem like Num would work out of the box, but would this
> be a good idea?
No. I suggested it just for completeness.
> What about *replacing* Num with Const? Might make optimizations
> specifically for numeric values slightly hairier, and semantically I
> think they might be different enough to warrant separate AST nodes
> despite the similarity in implementation at the compiler level.
I think they should be separate. Const would be a mere addition;
for compatibility with other uses of the AST, that's actually better
than simultaneous removal of Num.
Adding Const sounds good to me.
As Thomas mentions in a later message, making it possible to annotate
nodes would permit Functions to be annotated as being a generator at the
AST stage (currently it is left to the bytecode compiler's symtable
generation pass to make that determination).
Although I guess an alternative solution to that would be to have
separate AST nodes for Functions and Generators as well...
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
