Message 286976 - Python tracker

➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author	marco.buttu
Recipients	docs@python, marco.buttu, martin.panter, paul.moore, steve.dower, terry.reedy, tim.golden, xiang.zhang, zach.ware
Date	2017-02-04.16:51:39
SpamBayes Score	-1.0
Marked as misclassified	Yes
Message-id	<[email protected]>
In-reply-to

Content
I think you are right about the TAB model (Parser/tokenizer.c:40 and Lib/tokenize.py:215), that is why the difference between the two cases. In any case, I am not sure whether expliciting the type of the exeption is the best choice. So, to me +1 to just change "should report" with "reports" in the proposed patch, and +0 to indicate the exeption type.

I think you are right about the TAB model (Parser/tokenizer.c:40 and Lib/tokenize.py:215), that is why the difference between the two cases.

In any case, I am not sure whether expliciting the type of the exeption is the best choice. So, to me +1 to just change "should report" with "reports" in the proposed patch, and +0 to indicate the exeption type.

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2017-02-04 16:51:39	marco.buttu	set	recipients: + marco.buttu, terry.reedy, paul.moore, tim.golden, docs@python, martin.panter, zach.ware, steve.dower, xiang.zhang
2017-02-04 16:51:39	marco.buttu	set	messageid: <[email protected]>
2017-02-04 16:51:39	marco.buttu	link	issue29387 messages
2017-02-04 16:51:39	marco.buttu	create