On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 4:14 PM Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote: > > **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. I do not believe that the tone of my post was in any way objectionable. Yes, there was implied criticism of the code. I see no reason for you or anyone else to take that criticism personally. The post script asserted only that token-based code might be a better choice (for some projects) than ast-based code. This is in no way a criticism of tokenize.py, or of any of its authors. Clearly, the new code would have to be repackaged if it were to be made part of tokenize.py. That's all I would like to say now regarding your comments. Perhaps other devs will pick up the ball. Edward
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/J2ASOTDQRXFGQWQBDQYW4UINY4MUJU5B/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
