[Python-Dev] RE: [Patches] selfnanny.py: checking for "self" in every method

[Moshe Zadka]

On Sat, 4 Mar 2000, Tim Peters wrote:

> I like Moshe's suggestion fine, except with an abstract base class named
> Nanny with a virtual method named check_ast.  Nannies should (of course)
> derive from that.

Why? The C++ you're programming damaged your common sense cycles?

> > Since parsing is expensive, we probably want to share the parse tree.
> 
> What parse tree?  Python's parser module produces an AST not nearly "A
> enough" for reasonably productive nanny writing.

As a note, selfnanny uses the parser module AST.

>  GregS & BillT have
> improved on that, but it's not in the std distrib.  Other "problems" include
> the lack of original source lines in the trees,

The parser module has source lines.

> and lack of column-number info.

Yes, that sucks.

> Note that by the time Python has produced a parse tree, all evidence of the
> very thing tabnanny is looking for has been removed.  That's why she used
> the tokenize module to begin with.

Well, it's one of the few nannies which would be in that position.

> God knows tokenize is too funky to use too when life gets harder (check out
> checkappend.py's tokeneater state machine for a preliminary taste of that).

Why doesn't checkappend.py uses the parser module?

> Grabbing the GregS/BillT enhancement is probably the most
> practical thing we could build on right now 

You got some pointers?

> (but tabnanny will have to remain a special case).

tim-will-always-be-a-special-case-in-our-hearts-ly y'rs, Z.

--
Moshe Zadka <mzadka@geocities.com>. 
http://www.oreilly.com/news/prescod_0300.html