I am creating this post as a courtesy to anyone interested in python's tokenize
module.
**tl;dr:** Various posts, linked below, discuss a much better replacement for
untokenize. Do with it as you will.
This code is very unlikely to be buggy. *Please* let me know if you find
problems with it.
On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 4:14 PM Terry Reedy wrote:
> > **tl;dr:** Various posts, linked below, discuss a much better
replacement for untokenize.
> If that were true, I would be interested. But as explained below, I
don't believe it.
I do not believe that the tone of my post was in any way objec
On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 7:23 PM Edward K. Ream wrote:
Clearly, the new code would have to be repackaged if it were to be made
> part of tokenize.py. That's all I would like to say now regarding your
> comments. Perhaps other devs will pick up the ball.
>
After sleeping on your com
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 5:42 AM Edward K. Ream wrote:
> ...there are two reasons why adding the gem to tokenize.py might be a
good idea.
Heh. I myself am not convinced that the gem needs "advertising" in
tokenize.py.
Those interested in how Leo's token-based commands work wo
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We had a lot of discussion recently about changing the release schedule and
> splitting Python 2.6 and 3.0. There was general consensus that this was a
> good idea, in order to hit our October 1 deadline for Python 2.6 fin
nd it has
important implications for Leo. Just now I have some free time to
devote to it.
Edward
--
Edward K. Ream email: edream...@gmail.com
Leo: http://webpages.charter.net/edreamleo/front
post.
Q
Edward
----------
Edward K. Ream email: edream...@gmail.com
Leo: http://webpages.charter.net/edreamleo/front.html
--
___
Python-Dev
