Terry J. Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> added the comment:
Since these posts were more or less copied to pydev list, I am copying my response on the list here. --- > **tl;dr:** Various posts, linked below, discuss a much better replacement for > untokenize. If that were true, I would be interested. But as explained below, I don't believe it. Even if I did, https://bugs.python.org/issue38663 gives no evidence that you have signed the PSF contributor agreement. In any case, it has no PR. We only use code that is actually contributed on the issue or in a PR under that agreement. To continue, the first two lines of tokenize.untokenize() are ut = Untokenizer() out = ut.untokenize(iterable) Your leoBeautify.Untokenize class appears to be completely unsuited as a replacement for tokenize.Untokenizer as the API for the class and method are incompatible with the above. 1. untokenize.Untokenizer takes no argument. leoBeautify.Untokenize() requires a 'contents' argument, a (unicode) string, that is otherwise undocumented. At first glance, it appears that 'contents' needs to be something like the desired output. (I could read the code where you call Untokenizer to improve my guess, but not now.) Since our exising tests do not pass 'contents', they should all fail. 2. untokenize.Untokenizer.untokenize(iterable) require an iterable that returns "sequences with at least two elements, the token type and the token string." https://docs.python.org/3/library/tokenize.html#tokenize.untokenize One can generate python code from a sequence of pairs with a guarantee that the resulting code will be tokenized by the python.exe parser into the same sequence. The doc continues "Any additional sequence elements are ignored." The intent is that a tool can tokenize a file, modify the file (and thereby possibly invalidate the begin, end, and line elements of the original token stream) and generate a modified file. [Note that the end index (4th element), when present, is not ignored but is used to improve white space insertion. I believe that this should be documented. What if the end index is no longer valid? Should be also use the start index?] leoBeautify.Untokenize.untokenize() requires an iterable of 5-tuples. It makes uses of both the start and end elements, as well as the mysterious required 'contents' string. > I have "discovered" a spectacular replacement for Untokenizer.untokenize in > python's tokenize library module: To pass 'code == untokenize(tokenize(code))' (ignoring api details), there is an even more spectacular replacement: rebuild the code from the 'line' elements. But while the above is an essential test, it is a toy example with respect to applications. The challenge is to create a correct and valid file from less information, possibly with only token type and string. (The latter is 'compatibility mode'.) > In particular, it is, imo, time to remove compatibility mode. And break all usage that requires it? Before doing much more with tokenize, I would want to understand more how it is actually used. > Imo, python devs are biased in favor of parse trees in programs involving > text manipulations. [snip] So why have 46 of us contributed to this one module? This sort of polemic is a net negative here. We a multiple individuals with differing opinions. ---------- nosy: +terry.reedy stage: -> test needed versions: +Python 3.9 -Python 3.6 _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue38663> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
