Phillip M. Feldman <phillip.m.feld...@gmail.com> added the comment: Hello Martin,
This is a fine example of the so-called "is-ought" controversy. The error message is indeed telling me exactly what the problem is, but the underlying problem is that this scheme was poorly thought out. Clearly, the stripping of comments and the source decoding should both be done in a single pass, and the source decoding should not be applied to the comments. Phillip On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 4:26 AM, Martin v. Löwis <rep...@bugs.python.org>wrote: > > Martin v. Löwis <mar...@v.loewis.de> added the comment: > > The error message told you exactly what the problem is. Your source file > does not conform to PEP 263. The PEP also explains why this applies to > comments as well: because the entire file gets decoded according to the > source encoding, and parsing (including determining what comments are) only > starts afterwards. > > Closing the report as invalid. > > ---------- > nosy: +loewis > resolution: -> invalid > status: open -> closed > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> > <http://bugs.python.org/issue13185> > _______________________________________ > ---------- nosy: +phillip.m.feld...@gmail.com _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue13185> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
