A
Arthur
Given a "linemess.py" file with inconsistent line ending:
line 1 \r
\r\n
line \n
tokenized as per:
import tokenize
f=open('linemess.py','r')
tokens=tokenize.generate_tokens(f.readline)
for t in tokens:
print t
get output as follows:
(1, 'line', (1, 0), (1, 4), 'line 1\r\n')
(2, '1', (1, 5), (1, 6), 'line 1\r\n')
(4, '\r\n', (1, 6), (1, 8), 'line 1\r\n')
(1, 'line', (2, 0), (2, 4), 'line 2\n')
(2, '2', (2, 5), (2, 6), 'line 2\n')
(4, '\n', (2, 6), (2, 7), 'line 2\n')
(0, u'', (3, 0), (3, 0), u'')
So that the Windows \r\n is tokenized as a single literal token rather
than as \n under the convention of universal newline support.
Isn't this a problem?
I think this must have been at the route of the issue I ran into when a
file of messy inconsistent line ending that nonetheless compiled and ran
without a problem was rejected by tokenizer.py as having an indent issue.
On the theory that if tokenizer needs to fail when crap is thrown at it,
it should do so more gracefully - is this bug reportable?
Art
line 1 \r
\r\n
line \n
tokenized as per:
import tokenize
f=open('linemess.py','r')
tokens=tokenize.generate_tokens(f.readline)
for t in tokens:
print t
get output as follows:
(1, 'line', (1, 0), (1, 4), 'line 1\r\n')
(2, '1', (1, 5), (1, 6), 'line 1\r\n')
(4, '\r\n', (1, 6), (1, 8), 'line 1\r\n')
(1, 'line', (2, 0), (2, 4), 'line 2\n')
(2, '2', (2, 5), (2, 6), 'line 2\n')
(4, '\n', (2, 6), (2, 7), 'line 2\n')
(0, u'', (3, 0), (3, 0), u'')
So that the Windows \r\n is tokenized as a single literal token rather
than as \n under the convention of universal newline support.
Isn't this a problem?
I think this must have been at the route of the issue I ran into when a
file of messy inconsistent line ending that nonetheless compiled and ran
without a problem was rejected by tokenizer.py as having an indent issue.
On the theory that if tokenizer needs to fail when crap is thrown at it,
it should do so more gracefully - is this bug reportable?
Art