On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 4:14 PM Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:

> > **tl;dr:** Various posts, linked below, discuss a much better replacement for untokenize.

> If that were true, I would be interested.  But as explained below, I don't believe it.

I do not believe that the tone of my post was in any way objectionable. Yes, there was implied criticism of the code.  I see no reason for you or anyone else to take that criticism personally.

The post script asserted only that token-based code might be a better choice (for some projects) than ast-based code. This is in no way a criticism of tokenize.py, or of any of its authors.
Clearly, the new code would have to be repackaged if it were to be made part of tokenize.py. That's all I would like to say now regarding your comments. Perhaps other devs will pick up the ball.