Merge latest master into v1.0 #959
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## v1.0 #959 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 87.34% 87.61% +0.27%
==========================================
Files 49 49
Lines 6794 6879 +85
==========================================
+ Hits 5934 6027 +93
+ Misses 860 852 -8
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
| @@ -136,10 +137,13 @@ def _format_expected(self, expected): | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| class UnexpectedEOF(ParseError, UnexpectedInput): | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wasn't lalr not raising this exception? Seems also like a good change for 1.0.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree. But that's for another PR.
| @@ -158,20 +158,20 @@ class Token(str): | |||
|
|
|||
| def __new__(cls, type_, value, start_pos=None, line=None, column=None, end_line=None, end_column=None, end_pos=None): | |||
| try: | |||
| self = super(Token, cls).__new__(cls, value) | |||
| inst = super(Token, cls).__new__(cls, value) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I disagree with this naming change: After getting an instant via super.__name__, we are initializing it like a __init__ would. No reason not to treat it like that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Okay. I don't have a strong preference either way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually, let me try to push back by a little -
we are initializing it like a init would.
Not quite, in __init__ there is no need to return self.
It is also quite unusual to assign to self. In other language, where self/this are builtin, that would not be allowed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah fair enough. I don't feel to strong either.
No description provided.