On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 09:16, Benjamin Peterson <benjamin@python.org>wrote:
2009/8/14 Frank Wierzbicki <fwierzbicki@gmail.com>:
Hi all,
Off and on I have been directly comparing Jython's AST with Python's AST and generally working towards making them as close to identical as possible. There are a couple of places where I haven't "fixed" Jython because it looks to me like Jython has slightly better offsets. One example:
for a,b in c: pass
The Tuple node "a,b" ends up with a col_offset of 0 (the position of the "for") where Jython has the col_offset as 4 (the position of "a"). Jython's result is more consistent with other Tuple node col_offset results.
I have a local patch that changes the CPython col_offset to match Jython's, but before I submit a patch I thought I'd ask here if there is support for this sort of change and if I should continue to find col_offset and lineno results that look fishy to me, or should I just change Jython's results to match (one way or another, things will be much easier for me to test if they match).
Yes, please submit it.
Also, would this be a change that would be considered a backwards incompatibility? In other words, would patches like this be allowed in 2.6/3.1 or only in 2.7/3.2.
While I don't see a problem in backporting it to maintence branches, I would personally only apply it to the current development branches. It doesn't seem to fix a "bug", just make a nice improvement.
I like the improvement, but I disagree it should be considered for backporting as it changes semantics for something that could be considered a bug, but that feels like a stretch. -Brett