bpo-40528: fix is_simple(sum)s behavior for attributes #26918
Merged
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
This is something I noticed while (now discontinued) experimenting with the idea of annotating operators with location information. Unfortunately without this addition, adding any `attributes` to stuff like `unaryop` doesn't change anything since the code assumes they are singletons and caches all instances. This patch fixes this assumption with including the attributes as well as constructor fields.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This is something I noticed while (now discontinued) experimenting
with the idea of annotating operators with location information. Unfortunately
without this addition, adding any
attributesto stuff likeunaryopdoesn't change anything since the code assumes they are singletons and
caches all instances. This patch fixes this assumption with including
the attributes as well as constructor fields.
https://bugs.python.org/issue40528