7 Jun 2012 00:58
Re: handling comments in the parser
Michael D Godfrey <michaeldgodfrey <at> gmail.com>
2012-06-06 22:58:23 GMT
2012-06-06 22:58:23 GMT
On 06/06/2012 05:04 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
but this is retained for most purposes anyhow. Simplifying the parser
has substantial value, too. I vote for making this change.
mdg
So would there be any objection to simplifying the parser so that it discards comments (except for the first block that defines the docstring for a function; we would continue to store that as needed)? Can anyone think of trouble that this change would cause?I think that this is reasonable. It is useful to have the input source,
but this is retained for most purposes anyhow. Simplifying the parser
has substantial value, too. I vote for making this change.
mdg
RSS Feed