[issue11549] Rewrite peephole to work on AST

[Nick Coghlan]

Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> added the comment:

I think the biggest thing to take out of my review is that I strongly encourage deferring the changes for 5(b) and 5(c).

I like the basic idea of using a template-based approach to try to get rid of a lot of the boilerplate code currently needed for AST visitors.

Providing a hook for optimisation in Python (as Dave Malcolm's approach does) is valuable as well, but I don't think the two ideas need to be mutually exclusive.

As a more general policy question... where do we stand in regards to backwards compatibility of the AST? The ast module docs don't have any caveats to say that it may change between versions, but it obviously *can* change due to new language constructs (if nothing else).

----------

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue11549>
_______________________________________