[issue3417] make the fix_dict fixer smarter
Georg Brandl ge...@python.org added the comment: Is this still relevant? -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue3417 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue3417] make the fix_dict fixer smarter
Changes by Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org: -- nosy: +eric.araujo ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue3417 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue3417] make the fix_dict fixer smarter
Changes by Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org: -- resolution: - wont fix ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue3417 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue3417] make the fix_dict fixer smarter
Changes by Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org: -- status: open - closed ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue3417 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue3417] make the fix_dict fixer smarter
Rodrigo Bernardo Pimentel [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: (I've just realized it's not working properly for fix_dict; I'm fixing it and will drop a note here when it is) ___ Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue3417 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue3417] make the fix_dict fixer smarter
Rodrigo Bernardo Pimentel [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: I haven't managed to successfully complete the summer of code, due to some personal problems, but I'm still working on 2to3 and on confidence ranking for it. There's a bzr branch with its current implementation at http://isnomore.net/bzr/2to3 . I did an initial implementation of confidence penalties on fix_dict for special contexts. I'm still working on it (and on confidence ranking in general), but please take a look and let me know what you think. ___ Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue3417 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue3417] make the fix_dict fixer smarter
Benjamin Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: Ok. I'll mark this as something to do for 2.7/3.1. -- versions: +Python 2.7, Python 3.1 ___ Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue3417 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue3417] make the fix_dict fixer smarter
Collin Winter [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: I think the proper way to address this is via the confidence levels that Rodrigo Bernardo Pimentel is adding for his Summer of Code project. The idea is that you'll be able to say let me inspect any changes where the fixer is less than X% confident. fix_dict and for loops would be one such place. Until that mechanism is in place, I agree with Raymond that we should err on the side of correctness. -- nosy: +rbp ___ Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue3417 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue3417] make the fix_dict fixer smarter
Benjamin Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: for k in d.keys(): return k # needs to return a list Could you explain this a bit more? ___ Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue3417 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue3417] make the fix_dict fixer smarter
Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: The example was mucked-up :( The question is that when for-looping over d.keys/items etc, how you know that the body of the loop isn't going to mutate the dict? ___ Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue3417 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue3417] make the fix_dict fixer smarter
Benjamin Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: Exactly! For example, if the .items call is in a for loop, list() doesn't need to be called. -- title: make the fix_dict fixer explicit - make the fix_dict fixer smarter ___ Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue3417 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue3417] make the fix_dict fixer smarter
Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: for k in d.keys(): return k # needs to return a list -- nosy: +rhettinger ___ Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue3417 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
