Batuhan Taskaya

> What do you think about this approach? It is IMO interesting, because it does not need to calculate the superior_plan (that's how you called it in your patch) at...

> Do you want to implement it with a different approach? Nop, feel free to go with the pre-calculation. I might try to give it a shot, but pretty stacked...

Just to confirm, what is the motivation?

@davidhalter if we agree on some sort of a verification process (or use the existing syntax error generation), we could simply add a rule like this: ``` namedexpr_test: asexpr_test [':='...

The main problem with this issue is that usage of `yield` is fine with lambda (on every version, not sure about 2 though) ``` >>> get_errors("lambda: (yield)") ["SyntaxError: 'yield' outside...

@brettcannon if you actually don't care about comments etc, you could possibly use `ast.unparse()` and do the mutations over the AST. It is much simpler, and powerful. Instead of replacing...

> @isidentical as one of the co-authors of the ast module, I almost did that. grin But I was trying to avoid being quite that destructive in the transformation in...

Can verify that this works on upstream `ast.unparse`

For a little bit context, `ast.dump()` now omits optional fields/attributes from the output, most of them looks like related with it.

+ I'm currently working on an `omit_defaults` parameter, and other kinds of improvements to AST nodes, but it is probably going to land in 3.10.