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年01月27日.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年01月27日 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年01月27日 17:18:04 | Anthony Sottile | set | messageid: <1611767884.2.0.970913821693.issue3353@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| 2021年01月27日 17:18:04 | Anthony Sottile | link | issue3353 messages |
| 2021年01月27日 17:18:04 | Anthony Sottile | create |
|