Pablo Galindo Salgado <pablog...@gmail.com> added the comment:
Thank you very much for creating the issue :) > Seeing that the implicit resolution at #36256 was to keep the parser module > in place Nothing was really "decided", just that meanwhile is better not to ship a broken parser module. > may I suggest that the diagnostics it produces be improved, so that instead > of "Expected node type 305, got 11", it would raise "Expected namedexpr_test, > got COLON" Would you like to produce a PR for this? ---------- stage: patch review -> _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue36440> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
