Stefan Behnel added the comment: > fully working patches will be considered
Let me remind you that it's not me who wants this feature so badly. > As for faking the new API, I don't know if that's a good idea because we're > not yet sure what that new API is. If that's your concern, then I suggest not adding the feature at all, as long as we don't know if we can (or should) keep up the IncrementalParser facade with the revised implementation. For example, can it accept a user defined parser instance as input or not? Can it accept a user defined parser target as input? Can it wrap it or would it maybe have to inherit from a TreeBuilder? Should it be a class or a helper function? I don't see how the interface you proposed leaves less questions open than what I am proposing. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue17741> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
