On 4/22/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael Urman wrote: > > There's a lot of holes to this story, including at least how these > > functions are registered, and which additional arguments (if any) are > > necessary. Shall we try to fill these holes in? > > Answering without checking the source (which is undoubtedly a bad idea), but > this sounds like something else that could be addressed if it was possible to > either register an alternate AST compiler for a scope, or else get hold of an > AST and recompile it. (The former works for modules and functions, the latter > works only for functions) > > Even if it was only a matter of some additional keyword arguments to compile > and/or exec, it could at least be of benefit for plugin code or an interactive > interpreter loop.
Hm... Using the AST seems overkill for this (unless you want to do it without modifying the Python interpreter in any way). -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
