Jeremy, please review!

exceptions.  This was triggered when 'warnings' had a filter set to "error"
that caught the string exception deprecation warning.

In a Windows debug build, trying to open a file using
an empty string as the name causes assertion death
inside MS's C runtime code.  We probably need to worm
around that in many places.  I'm worming around it here
to stop the new test_with.py from assert-dying in the
Windows debug build (it calls compile() with an empty
string for "the file name", which indirectly leads to
C-level code in Python trying to fopen("", "r")).

This was started by Mike Bland and completed by Guido
(with help from Neal).

This still needs a __future__ statement added;
Thomas is working on Michael's patch for that aspect.

There's a small amount of code cleanup and refactoring
in ast.c, compile.c and ceval.c (I fixed the lltrace
behavior when EXT_POP is used -- however I had to make
lltrace a static global).

be complete when when checking types.

Yield cannot be tested outside a function, so add a comment to that effect.

the interpreter in 2.5 .

(Armin's SF bug report).
d = {}
d[1,] = 1
Now handled correctly

PyThreadState_Delete():  if the auto-GIL-state machinery knows about
the thread state, forget it (since the thread state is being deleted,
continuing to remember it can't help, but can hurt if another thread
happens to get created with the same thread id).

I'll backport to 2.4 next.

Cleanup Python-ast.c generation.

breaks the parser module, because it adds the if/else construct as well as
two new grammar rules for backward compatibility. If no one else fixes
parsermodule, I guess I'll go ahead and fix it later this week.

The TeX code was checked with texcheck.py, but not rendered. There is
actually a slight incompatibility:

>>> (x for x in lambda:0)
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: iteration over non-sequence

changes into

>>> (x for x in lambda: 0)
  File "<stdin>", line 1
    (x for x in lambda: 0)
                     ^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax

Since there's no way the former version can be useful, it's probably a
bugfix ;)