[Python-checkins] r82848 - python/branches/py3k/Doc/library/ast.rst

[Benjamin Peterson]

2010/7/13 Georg Brandl <g.brandl at gmx.net>:
> Am 13.07.2010 19:17, schrieb Ezio Melotti:
>>   On 13/07/2010 9.38, georg.brandl wrote:
>>> Author: georg.brandl
>>> Date: Tue Jul 13 08:38:10 2010
>>> New Revision: 82848
>>>
>>> Log:
>>> Add bytes in literal_eval doc.
>>>
>>> Modified:
>>>     python/branches/py3k/Doc/library/ast.rst
>>>
>>> Modified: python/branches/py3k/Doc/library/ast.rst
>>> ==============================================================================
>>> --- python/branches/py3k/Doc/library/ast.rst (original)
>>> +++ python/branches/py3k/Doc/library/ast.rst Tue Jul 13 08:38:10 2010
>>> @@ -119,14 +119,14 @@
>>>
>>>      Safely evaluate an expression node or a string containing a Python
>>>      expression.  The string or node provided may only consist of the following
>>> -   Python literal structures: strings, numbers, tuples, lists, dicts, sets,
>>> -   booleans, and ``None``.
>>> +   Python literal structures: strings, bytes, numbers, tuples, lists, dicts,
>>> +   sets, booleans, and ``None``.
>>>
>>>      This can be used for safely evaluating strings containing Python expressions
>>>      from untrusted sources without the need to parse the values oneself.
>>>
>>>      .. versionchanged:: 3.2
>>> -      Now allows set literals.
>>> +      Now allows bytes and set literals.
>>>
>>>
>>>   .. function:: get_docstring(node, clean=True)
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Python-checkins mailing list
>>> Python-checkins at python.org
>>> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-checkins
>>>
>> This has been fixed in 3.1 too in r82829. As I said on IRC I consider
>> this (and the missing set literals on 2.7/3.1) as a bug, so I would:
>>    1) remove the versionchanged from 3.2;
>>    2) add bytes literal in the doc for 3.1 (the fix has been backported
>> already);
>>    3) backport and document set literals to 3.1 and 2.7 too;
>>    4) possibly update the doc for byte literals in 2.7 too (it just says
>> 'strings' but it supports u"" and b"" too).
>>
>> (and if it can't be consider as a bug, the fix should probably be
>> reverted from 3.1)
>
> And as I said on IRC :), I don't consider this a bug fix, so I won't do anything
> about backporting or reverting in 3.1 or 2.7 -- this is up to Benjamin.

And I'm with Georg on this.



-- 
Regards,
Benjamin