[Python-3000] Is this really a SyntaxError?
Guido van Rossum
guido at python.org
Thu Jul 31 06:03:21 CEST 2008
I hope others can review, and you should ask Barry if this is okay for beta3.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc
<amauryfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/7/30 Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org>:
>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 2:34 AM, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc
>> <amauryfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I hope this patch is simple enough for you:
>>> Index: Grammar/Grammar
>>> --- Grammar/Grammar (revision 65298)
>>> +++ Grammar/Grammar (working copy)
>>> @@ -113,7 +113,9 @@
>>> classdef: 'class' NAME ['(' [arglist] ')'] ':' suite
>>> -arglist: (argument ',')* (argument [',']| '*' test [',' '**' test] | '**' test)
>>> +arglist: (argument ',')* (argument [',']
>>> + |'*' test (',' NAME '=' test)* [',' '**' test]
>>> + |'**' test)
>>> argument: test [comp_for] | test '=' test # Really [keyword '='] test
>>> comp_iter: comp_for | comp_if
>>> (and call pgen to rebuild the graminit.c)
>>> Positional arguments after the *args are explicitly disallowed:
>>> f(1, *[2, 3], 4, z=5)
>>> The syntax could make sense, but this would require more changes in
>>> the compiler,
>>> to properly order the parameters.
>> Are you saying that after the above Grammar change, the code generator
>> already does the right thing for Raymond's code?
> Yes! the ast builder simply collects items from the parenthesized sequence,
> and does not care about the ordering - except for an explicit
> "non-keyword arg after keyword arg".
>> Then I say go for it
>> -- but please do add new unit tests.
> Of course -- I was just requesting approval.
> I am working on a documentation patch as well, and filed
> Amaury Forgeot d'Arc
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
More information about the Python-3000