Martin v. Löwis wrote: > Georg Brandl schrieb: > > Perhaps you can bring up a discussion on python-dev about your improvements > > and how they could be integrated into the standard library... > > Let me second this. The compiler package is largely unmaintained and > was known to be broken (and perhaps still is). A replacement > implementation, especially if it comes with a new maintainer, would > be welcome.
I don't agree entirely with the "broken" assessment. Although I'm not chasing the latest language constructs, the AST construction part of the package seems good enough to me, and apparent bugs like duplicate parameters in function signatures are actually documented shortcomings of the functionality provided. I certainly don't like the level of code documentation; from the baroque compiler.visitor, for example: # XXX should probably rename ASTVisitor to ASTWalker # XXX can it be made even more generic? However, a cursory scan of the bugs filed against the compiler module, trying hard to filter out other compiler-related things, reveals that most of the complaints are related to code generation, and the compiler2 module appears to be squarely aimed at this domain. I find the compiler package useful - at least the bits not related to code generation - and despite apparent unawareness of its existence in the community (judging from observed usage of the parser and tokenizer modules in cases where the compiler module would have been more appropriate), I'd be unhappy to see it dropped. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
