GeezerVison is showing github.com — PEP 701 – Syntactic formalization of f-strings · Issue #102856 · python/cpython
PEP 701 – Syntactic formalization of f-strings #102856Description
- Changes in the C tokenizer
- Categorize failing tests
- Fix failing tests or modify/remove them as needed
- Changes in Python tokenizer
Linked PRs
Reacted by Jesse P. Johnson Reacted by Alex Waygood, Batuhan Taskaya, Lysandros Nikolaou, Kirill Podoprigora, Oleg Iarygin, Vasily Ryabov, Charlie Zhao, Mohamed El Mouctar HAIDARA, Philippe Voinov and Mikhail Efimov Activitypablogsal commented on Mar 20, 2023 pablogsal commented on Mar 20, 2023 pablogsal commented on Mar 20, 2023 Draft PR for the C tokenizer up: #102855 pablogsal commented on Mar 20, 2023 Things for the cleanup of #102855:
- Cleaning up the grammar and the action helpers (the names are still ridiculous and there are multiple rules commented out).
- Remove the old parsing code and check that we didn't break anything 😅
- Clean/refactor the tokenizer struct (better names, factor stuff into its own structure as needed).
- Consider factoring out
tok_get_fstring_mode because is a monster.
pablogsal commented on Mar 20, 2023 Ok with #102855 we have the following failing tests:
- test_ast
- test_cmd_line_script
- test_eof
- test_exceptions
- test_fstring
- test_tokenize
- test_type_comments
- test_unparse
Most of these are updating error messages, line numbers and other stuff but some may have actual bugs so we should check them. Please, mention which ones are you working on so we don't clash with one another. mgmacias95 commented on Mar 20, 2023 Reacted by Pablo Galindo Salgado Eclips4 commented on Mar 21, 2023 Hello, Pablo!
Can I get work on test_ast?
Recently I sent some PR's about this file (for example, #102797). So, I have some experience in that =) ramvikrams commented on Mar 21, 2023 I can work with test_type_comments and test_unparse. pablogsal commented on Mar 21, 2023 @Eclips4 @ramvikrams wonderful! Just make PRs against my fork!
Report here or ping any of us if you find something that could be a bug (don't just fix the tests blindly because there may be bugs lurking). Reacted by Ram Vikram Singh and Kirill Podoprigora pablogsal commented on Mar 21, 2023 @lysnikolaou can you work on cleaning up the grammar + the actions?
@isidentical can you work on cleaning up some of the tokenizer layers? (This is quite a lot so we can probably work together here). Eclips4 commented on Mar 21, 2023 @pablogsal
About test_ast.py
Seems thats like there only a one test will be failed, and how I undestand, that's a bug:
|
with self.assertRaises(SyntaxError): |
|
ast.parse('f"{x=}"', feature_version=(3, 7)) |
I think, there's two solutions:
- Remove this test, because support of python3.7 will be ended soon.
- Now errors raised by
tokenizer.c instead of string_parser.c, so as I understand, we should change python_gram, is it right? ( We need access to feature_version, which in tokenizer inaccessible )
pablogsal commented on Mar 21, 2023
2. Now errors raised by tokenizer.c instead of string_parser.c, so as I understand, we should change python_gram, is it right? ( We need access to feature_version, which in tokenizer inaccessible )
Probably we can do this but on the other hand I would prefer to not overcomplicate this so I think (1) is better Reacted by Kirill Podoprigora and Lysandros Nikolaou lysnikolaou commented on Mar 21, 2023
@lysnikolaou can you work on cleaning up the grammar + the actions?
Will do! Eclips4 commented on Mar 21, 2023 Also, I can take a look at test_cmd_line_script. Seems easy. pablogsal commented on Mar 21, 2023
Also, I can take a look at test_cmd_line_script. Seems easy.
All yours! pablogsal commented on May 24, 2023 Reacted by Lysandros Nikolaou lysnikolaou commented on May 24, 2023 added 3 commits that reference this issue on May 24, 2023gh-102856: Update "Formatted string literals" docs section after PEP7… flying-sheep commented on Oct 2, 2023 Ah great! I didn't know someone would continue PEP 536. Happy that it's happening!
Shouldn't PEP 536 be mentioned in this one? pablogsal commented on Oct 3, 2023
Ah great! I didn't know someone would continue PEP 536. Happy that it's happening!
Shouldn't PEP 536 be mentioned in this one?
It's mentioned in the PEP:
https://peps.python.org/pep-0701/
Btw as heads up: We don't monitor normally closed issues so is very likely that people won't answer to comments when the issue is closed :) flying-sheep commented on Oct 3, 2023 Thanks! Seems like I missed the mention then. Perfect!
MetadataMetadataDevelopmentNo branches or pull requestsIssue actions
|