Skip to content

Make typed_ast mypy's default and only parser #1353

Closed

Description

@ddfisher

Currently, typed_ast is mypy's preferred parser (as it's much faster, more correct, and supports features like multiline type comments), but it is not yet mypy's default parser. The main blocker to this is Windows support.

Here are the high-level items remaining:

  • make typed_ast compile and run correctly on Windows
  • autobuild Windows wheels with AppVeyor
  • [optional] autobuild OS X wheels in TravisCI
  • update tests to account for minor line differences between typed_ast and the current parser
  • make typed_ast the default parser
  • remove old parser

Activity

  1. self-assigned this
    on Apr 8, 2016
  2. added this to the milestone on Apr 8, 2016
  3. ddfisher commented on Apr 8, 2016

    @ddfisher
    CollaboratorAuthor

    After this is complete, we can start converting mypy to use typed_ast's ast (which is very similar to the official python ast) node by node (which will further help perf).

  4. ddfisher commented on Apr 12, 2016

    @ddfisher
    CollaboratorAuthor

    typed_ast code now available at https://github.com/dropbox/typed_ast

  5. modified the milestones: , on Apr 28, 2016
  6. gvanrossum commented on May 6, 2016

    @gvanrossum
    Member

    @ddfisher: I've created a label "New Parser" and added it to all issues that look like they would be fixed by the new parser or could be fixed once the new parser is the only parser.

  7. changed the title [-]Switch to a faster parser based on CPython's ast module[/-] [+]Make typed_ast mypy's default and only parser[/+] on Oct 19, 2016
  8. ddfisher commented on Oct 19, 2016

    @ddfisher
    CollaboratorAuthor

    The progress of making typed_ast compile and run on Windows is being tracked in this issue: python/typed_ast#20

  9. emmatyping commented on Jan 6, 2017

    @emmatyping
    Member

    Since typed_ast now supports Windows fully, would there be interest in me working on appveyor integration? I know it was tried previously, but once this is completed, I see no reason why it shouldn't be added.

  10. gvanrossum commented on Jan 6, 2017

    @gvanrossum
    Member

    Yes @ethanhs we would it if you could contribute Appveyor integration! I once tried but didn't understand how it was supposed to work.

  11. added a commit that references this issue on Jan 25, 2017
    5d93b3e
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions