Re: Re: Proposal: ptl_compile.register_preprocessor()

On Aug 31, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Graham Fawcett wrote:
>  Perhaps, rather than a
> "register_" pattern, we could just put PTL's own transformers in a
> pair of lists (source_transformers, tree_transformers) at the module
> level; interested parties could manipulate the lists, inserting their
> handlers in the appropriate places. Thoughts?

It might be even more explicit to just have a
source_transformer and tree_transfomer at the module level,
where the source transformer is the interested party's desired
composition of source_transform functions, and similarly for
the tree_transformer.