On 9/28/06, Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 29 September 2006 00:30, Jeremy Hylton wrote:
> > On 9/23/06, Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'd like to propose that the AST format returned by passing PyCF_ONLY_AST
> > > to compile() get the same guarantee in main
On Friday 29 September 2006 00:30, Jeremy Hylton wrote:
> On 9/23/06, Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd like to propose that the AST format returned by passing PyCF_ONLY_AST
> > to compile() get the same guarantee in maintenance branches as the
> > bytecode format - that is, unless
On 9/23/06, Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to propose that the AST format returned by passing PyCF_ONLY_AST to
> compile() get the same guarantee in maintenance branches as the bytecode
> format - that is, unless it's absolutely necessary, we'll keep it the same.
> Otherwise a
On 9/23/06, Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd like to propose that the AST format returned by passing PyCF_ONLY_AST tocompile() get the same guarantee in maintenance branches as the bytecodeformat - that is, unless it's absolutely necessary, we'll keep it the same.
Otherwise anyone tryi
Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd like to propose that the AST format returned by passing PyCF_ONLY_AST to
> compile() get the same guarantee in maintenance branches as the bytecode
> format - that is, unless it's absolutely necessary, we'll keep it the same.
> Otherwise anyone t
I'd like to propose that the AST format returned by passing PyCF_ONLY_AST to
compile() get the same guarantee in maintenance branches as the bytecode
format - that is, unless it's absolutely necessary, we'll keep it the same.
Otherwise anyone trying to write tools to manipulate the AST is in for
