[..]
The problem I see with making the documentation and naming too generic is that people won't know what the feature is useful for - a generic term like "transformer" accurately describes these units of code, but provides no hint as to why a developer might care about their existence.
However, if the reason we're adding the capability is to make global static optimizers feasible, then we cam describe it accordingly (so the answer to "Why does this feature exist?" becomes relatively self evident), and have the fact that the feature can actually be used for arbitrary transforms be an added bonus rather than the core intent. On Mon, Jan 18, 2016, at 11:45, Yury Selivanov wrote: +1. I think that it depends on how it's implemented. Having a _requirement_
On 2016-01-17 7:36 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: that semantics _must_ be preserved suggests that they may not always be applied, or may not be applied in a deterministic order.
It just won't be possible to enforce that "requirement". What Nick suggests (and I suggested in my email earlier in this thread) is that we should name the APIs clearly to avoid any confusion. `sys.set_code_transformers` is less clear about what it should be used for than `sys.set_code_optimizers`. Yury