GV

GeezerVison

The World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory.

Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites

On this site

  • Sign in
  • ActionsCI/CD and automation
  • CodespacesCloud development environments
  • All Features
  • Documentation
  • Training
  • Certifications
  • Build with Copilot
  • Customize Copilot
  • Integrations
  • Trending repos
  • GitHub Sponsors
  • Developer articles
  • Enterprises

This view

  • Original page
  • New address

GeezerVison is showing github.com — [3.9] bpo-41659: Disallow curly brace directly after primary (GH-22996) by lysnikolaou · Pull Request #23006 · python/cpython

Conversation

@lysnikolaou

@lysnikolaou lysnikolaou commented Oct 27, 2020 •
edited by bedevere-bot
Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

(cherry picked from commit 15acc4e)

https://bugs.python.org/issue41659

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
All reactions
@lysnikolaou
[3.9] bpo-41659: Disallow curly brace directly after primary (pythonG…
0c1be77 
…H-22996)

(cherry picked from commit 15acc4e)
@lysnikolaou
lysnikolaou requested a review from pablogsal as a code owner October 27, 2020 19:04
@the-knights-who-say-ni the-knights-who-say-ni added the CLA signed label Oct 27, 2020
@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot mentioned this pull request Oct 27, 2020
bpo-41659: Disallow curly brace directly after primary #22996
Merged
@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot added the awaiting core review label Oct 27, 2020
@lysnikolaou

lysnikolaou commented Oct 27, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

I opened this PR without having made up my mind if we really should merge it or not. Having a left-recursive rule, that's called so frequently, open with an invalid alternative seems like it will have some performance implications. Should we maybe revisit backporting #22111 to 3.9 before merging this one?

CC @pablogsal @gvanrossum
All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
@pablogsal

pablogsal commented Oct 27, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I opened this PR without having made up my mind if we really should merge it or not. Having a left-recursive rule, that's called so frequently, open with an invalid alternative seems like it will have some performance implications. Should we maybe revisit backporting #22111 to 3.9 before merging this one?

CC @pablogsal @gvanrossum

I would say that is wise to have an idea of the impact of this before doing anything, definitely.
All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
@lysnikolaou

lysnikolaou commented Oct 27, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

The stdlib benchmark went from 7.530s (mean from running it 4 times) in the 3.9 branch to 7.546s here.
All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
gvanrossum
gvanrossum approved these changes Oct 27, 2020
View reviewed changes
@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot added awaiting merge and removed awaiting core review labels Oct 27, 2020
@lysnikolaou
lysnikolaou merged commit c4b58ce into python:3.9 Oct 27, 2020
@bedevere-bot

bedevere-bot commented Oct 27, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@lysnikolaou: Please replace # with GH- in the commit message next time. Thanks!
All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot removed the awaiting merge label Oct 27, 2020
@lysnikolaou
lysnikolaou deleted the backport-15acc4e-3.9 branch October 27, 2020 22:38
@lysnikolaou lysnikolaou mentioned this pull request Oct 27, 2020
bpo-42123: Run the parser two times and only enable invalid rules on the second run #22111
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@gvanrossum gvanrossum gvanrossum approved these changes
@pablogsal pablogsal Awaiting requested review from pablogsal pablogsal is a code owner

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

5 participants

@lysnikolaou @pablogsal @bedevere-bot @gvanrossum @the-knights-who-say-ni
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
You are visitor 01402520 — GeezerVison does not store the pages you look up.
Best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.7 or Internet Explorer 6 at 800×600. No cookies required.