[apug] Re: [Python-Dev] Call for clarity ( clarification ;-) )
Thu, 5 Sep 2002 00:45:03 -0400
While I understand what you're trying to do here (and think it would
be quite nice), I'm not sure how you're going to accomplish it. How
will parsing python using a syntax-tree help? It's not going to tell
you what the function does in all cases or the various types it could
handle. Perhaps you could make educated guesses by looking at the
types of operations on the objects (a 'has_key' is a sure indicator of
a hash), but that would be sketchy at best.
For a ready example, imagine having a module that contains useful
helper functions. How are you going to identify the type requirements
of those functions if you don't have context? How can you be sure that
you've convered all contexts (including conversions).
Such is the nature of dynamic languages. It's very hard to do
what you'd like to do here.
On Sat, Sep 07 @ 21:22, Hunter Peress wrote:
> I think its easier to enforce this from the level i describe, than have
> guido saying "ok guys please be more explicit in your documentation". I
> mean, both of those documents above are somewhat explicit, but they are
> not COMPLETE.
> Could you provide me with some linkage on parsing python (from a
> compilation/ syntax-tree analysis POV). SO that i can get to work on
> writing a patch for the pydoc generation program.
For my gpg public key: