[Python-checkins] r82848 - python/branches/py3k/Doc/library/ast.rst

[Georg Brandl]

Am 13.07.2010 19:17, schrieb Ezio Melotti:
>   On 13/07/2010 9.38, georg.brandl wrote:
>> Author: georg.brandl
>> Date: Tue Jul 13 08:38:10 2010
>> New Revision: 82848
>>
>> Log:
>> Add bytes in literal_eval doc.
>>
>> Modified:
>>     python/branches/py3k/Doc/library/ast.rst
>>
>> Modified: python/branches/py3k/Doc/library/ast.rst
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- python/branches/py3k/Doc/library/ast.rst	(original)
>> +++ python/branches/py3k/Doc/library/ast.rst	Tue Jul 13 08:38:10 2010
>> @@ -119,14 +119,14 @@
>>
>>      Safely evaluate an expression node or a string containing a Python
>>      expression.  The string or node provided may only consist of the following
>> -   Python literal structures: strings, numbers, tuples, lists, dicts, sets,
>> -   booleans, and ``None``.
>> +   Python literal structures: strings, bytes, numbers, tuples, lists, dicts,
>> +   sets, booleans, and ``None``.
>>
>>      This can be used for safely evaluating strings containing Python expressions
>>      from untrusted sources without the need to parse the values oneself.
>>
>>      .. versionchanged:: 3.2
>> -      Now allows set literals.
>> +      Now allows bytes and set literals.
>>
>>
>>   .. function:: get_docstring(node, clean=True)
>> _______________________________________________
>> Python-checkins mailing list
>> Python-checkins at python.org
>> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-checkins
>>
> This has been fixed in 3.1 too in r82829. As I said on IRC I consider 
> this (and the missing set literals on 2.7/3.1) as a bug, so I would:
>    1) remove the versionchanged from 3.2;
>    2) add bytes literal in the doc for 3.1 (the fix has been backported 
> already);
>    3) backport and document set literals to 3.1 and 2.7 too;
>    4) possibly update the doc for byte literals in 2.7 too (it just says 
> 'strings' but it supports u"" and b"" too).
> 
> (and if it can't be consider as a bug, the fix should probably be 
> reverted from 3.1)

And as I said on IRC :), I don't consider this a bug fix, so I won't do anything
about backporting or reverting in 3.1 or 2.7 -- this is up to Benjamin.

Georg