[issue3417] make the fix_dict fixer smarter

Changes by Benjamin Peterson : -- status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://

[issue3417] make the fix_dict fixer smarter

Changes by Benjamin Peterson : -- resolution: -> wont fix ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http:

[issue3417] make the fix_dict fixer smarter

Changes by Éric Araujo : -- nosy: +eric.araujo ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.pytho

[issue3417] make the fix_dict fixer smarter

Georg Brandl added the comment: Is this still relevant? -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http

[issue3417] make the fix_dict fixer smarter

Rodrigo Bernardo Pimentel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: (I've just realized it's not working properly for fix_dict; I'm fixing it and will drop a note here when it is) ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _

[issue3417] make the fix_dict fixer smarter

Rodrigo Bernardo Pimentel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: I haven't managed to successfully complete the summer of code, due to some personal problems, but I'm still working on 2to3 and on confidence ranking for it. There's a bzr branch with its current implementation at http://isnomore.n

[issue3417] make the fix_dict fixer smarter

Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Ok. I'll mark this as something to do for 2.7/3.1. -- versions: +Python 2.7, Python 3.1 ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[issue3417] make the fix_dict fixer smarter

Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: I think the proper way to address this is via the confidence levels that Rodrigo Bernardo Pimentel is adding for his Summer of Code project. The idea is that you'll be able to say "let me inspect any changes where the fixer is less than X% conf

[issue3417] make the fix_dict fixer smarter

Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: The example was mucked-up :( The question is that when for-looping over d.keys/items etc, how you know that the body of the loop isn't going to mutate the dict? ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[issue3417] make the fix_dict fixer smarter

Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: >for k in d.keys(): > return k # needs to return a list Could you explain this a bit more? ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _

[issue3417] make the fix_dict fixer smarter

Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: for k in d.keys(): return k # needs to return a list -- nosy: +rhettinger ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ _

[issue3417] make the fix_dict fixer smarter

Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Here's a patch that doesn't add the enclosing list call in a for loop. -- keywords: +patch Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file10949/smarter_fix_dict.diff ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED

[issue3417] make the fix_dict fixer smarter

Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Exactly! For example, if the .items call is in a for loop, list() doesn't need to be called. -- title: make the fix_dict fixer explicit -> make the fix_dict fixer smarter ___ Python tracker <[EM