On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 09:16, Benjamin Peterson <benja...@python.org>wrote:
> 2009/8/14 Frank Wierzbicki <fwierzbi...@gmail.com>: > > Hi all, > > > > Off and on I have been directly comparing Jython's AST with Python's > > AST and generally working towards making them as close to identical as > > possible. There are a couple of places where I haven't "fixed" Jython > > because it looks to me like Jython has slightly better offsets. One > > example: > > > > for a,b in c: > > pass > > > > The Tuple node "a,b" ends up with a col_offset of 0 (the position of > > the "for") where Jython has the col_offset as 4 (the position of "a"). > > Jython's result is more consistent with other Tuple node col_offset > > results. > > > > I have a local patch that changes the CPython col_offset to match > > Jython's, but before I submit a patch I thought I'd ask here if there > > is support for this sort of change and if I should continue to find > > col_offset and lineno results that look fishy to me, or should I just > > change Jython's results to match (one way or another, things will be > > much easier for me to test if they match). > > Yes, please submit it. > > > > > Also, would this be a change that would be considered a backwards > > incompatibility? In other words, would patches like this be allowed > > in 2.6/3.1 or only in 2.7/3.2. > > While I don't see a problem in backporting it to maintence branches, I > would personally only apply it to the current development branches. It > doesn't seem to fix a "bug", just make a nice improvement. I like the improvement, but I disagree it should be considered for backporting as it changes semantics for something that could be considered a bug, but that feels like a stretch. -Brett
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
