gh-126835: Rename AST optimization related stuff after moving const folding to the peephole optimizier

[WolframAlph]

• Issue: Move const folding to the peephole optimizer #126835

[picnixz]

Can you say which files were renamed? we have a 3.13 news entry that mentions ast_opt so maybe it's a good idea to say that Python/ast_opt.c is renamed Python/ast_process.c

[WolframAlph]

Sure, I will.

[picnixz]

While I think it's good to mention the files I don't know if we ever mentioned those structs and functions publicly. If not, no need to mention their renames. Strictly speaking, Python/* files are also all internals so maybe it's not needed to mention them in the end but I found a 3.13 NEWS entry that mentioned it (which is why I suggested this)

[WolframAlph]

Struct maybe yes because it's private, but _PyAST_Optimize and _PyCompile_AstOptimize are in internal API, aren't they?

[picnixz]

We actually made the structs private in 3.13:

Make ``_PyASTOptimizeState`` internal to ast_opt.c. Make ``_PyAST_Optimize``
take two integers instead of a pointer to this struct. This avoids the need
to include pycore_compile.h in ast_opt.c.

But we also mentioned _PyAST_Optimize, so we might want to mention the change even if no one should use them.

[iritkatriel]

You can include it in the news item. No need for what's new.

[WolframAlph]

Im a bit confused. This is news entry, not what's new. Am I missing something?

[picnixz]

No, I think Irit just wanted to say "keep what you wrote but no need for a What's New entry" (maybe I wasn't clear but the changelog I mentioned also was a simple blurb, not a full-fledged What's New entry)

[iritkatriel]

I'm not sure about the name ast_process. Seems to nonspecific. I don't have a better idea at the moment though.

[WolframAlph]

It does all kind of things. Optimizes format, removes docstrings, implements PEP 765, etc. I don't think there is good name for it to make it more specific.

[WolframAlph]

@picnixz Maybe you have better suggestion how to name it?

[picnixz]

I think "ast_process" is fine but otherwise, something with AST_Transform as we're doing a transformation/checks on the AST. I feel there is a mix of AST optimization (real opts + docstrings eradication), a bit of AST processing/post-processing (PEP 765) and more. So process is fine IMO.

[iritkatriel]

Maybe ast_preprocess. Preprocessing is a term you hear in compilers.

[picnixz]

Yes, I think preprocess is better as it's before we compile (and compilers would call it a pre-processing step (e.g., C compilers would pre-process macros here and comments elimination; well optimization is not part of pre-processing and usually happens after but still before compilation I think?).