Łukasz Langa <luk...@langa.pl> added the comment: Sorry, I think we shouldn't be changing `ast.py` this way. To reiterate my review comment from the PR:
I think we should just let this go and instead advertise that if you put new synthetic nodes in a tree, you have to either: - provide `lineno` and `col_offset` yourself; or - use `fix_missing_locations()` to fill out the information for you. The problem with the logic that I commented on twice now (on the PR) is one reason for my opinion. Another is bigger though: Suppose user code is replacing nodes or just inserting new ones. This operation not only creates nodes without location attributes. It also in all likelihood *moves* locations of type comments and those aren't updated (for example, `_type_ignores[123]` should now really be `_type_ignores[125]` to still point at the same tokens). So user code shouldn't be naive when it comes to missing locations, and we definitely shouldn't paper over missing locations. ---------- nosy: +lukasz.langa resolution: -> rejected stage: patch review -> resolved _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue44896> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
