2012/12/27 Sven Brauch :
> 2012/12/27 Guido van Rossum :
>> So just submit a patch to the tracker...
>>
>> --Guido
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, December 27, 2012, Sven Brauch wrote:
>>>
>>> 2012/12/27 Nick Coghlan :
>>> > It certainly sounds like its worth considering for 3.4. It's a new
>>> > feature, th
2012/12/27 Guido van Rossum :
> So just submit a patch to the tracker...
>
> --Guido
>
>
> On Thursday, December 27, 2012, Sven Brauch wrote:
>>
>> 2012/12/27 Nick Coghlan :
>> > It certainly sounds like its worth considering for 3.4. It's a new
>> > feature, though, so it unfortunately wouldn't be
So just submit a patch to the tracker...
--Guido
On Thursday, December 27, 2012, Sven Brauch wrote:
> 2012/12/27 Nick Coghlan >:
> > It certainly sounds like its worth considering for 3.4. It's a new
> > feature, though, so it unfortunately wouldn't be possible to backport
> > it to any earlier
2012/12/27 Nick Coghlan :
> It certainly sounds like its worth considering for 3.4. It's a new
> feature, though, so it unfortunately wouldn't be possible to backport
> it to any earlier releases.
Yes, that is understandable. It wouldn't be much of a problem tough,
my whole project is pretty bleed
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Sven Brauch wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I'm writing a static language analyzer for an IDE which reuses the
> CPython parser (for parsing) [1]. Two years ago, I asked about a few
> changes to be made to the AST provided by CPython, but the discussion
> thread dried up befo
Hello!
I'm writing a static language analyzer for an IDE which reuses the
CPython parser (for parsing) [1]. Two years ago, I asked about a few
changes to be made to the AST provided by CPython, but the discussion
thread dried up before a definite decision was made. I decided to just
copy the parse
