Message313997
| Author |
Mark.Shannon |
| Recipients |
Mark.Shannon, benjamin.peterson, georg.brandl, lukasz.langa, methane, ned.deily, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner |
| Date |
2018年03月17日.12:23:31 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1521289411.45.0.467229070634.issue32911@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
I still think that option 2 would be best, but given that it is late in the release cycle, I will accept the status quo.
A couple of comments for the record:
Constant folding occurs after AST creation, so doesn't make the AST worse.
The parse tree created by lib2to3 is a concrete parse tree, not an AST. However, it might would sense (as Łukasz suggests) to use it as a basis for an AST designed for tooling and leave the AST generated by the C parser for bytecode generation.
Happy to close this issue now, unless anyone else has something to add. |
|