Feature generalize unparser a little #69
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…bscript: must not print the parentheses
This was done with the idea to allow for AST trees with all nodes of the same type, which may be easier to handle ans serialize
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hi, this is a suggestion: Could we make the unparser a little bit more generic maybe:
The idea is that we can use a more generic tree structure that is easier to work with.
https://github.com/aiandit/astunparse
If you look at the other branches in our fork, you can see where this is heading, we can have ASTs with a clone method and load/save to JSON and XML, for example. If you like, we would contribute all of it to the project, also because it's obviously inspired by your code a lot, but this pull request is the set of changes that we would need to make it work with astunparse, if we would alternatively put that additional stuff into a separate package.
Tested with py27 and py39.
What do you think? Thanks in advance for considering.
Best regards