FWIW, I'm -1 on both proposals too. I like implicit string literal concatenation and I really can't see what we gain from backslash continuation removal.
Mark Hammond schrieb:
Please add my -1 to the chorus here, for the same reasons already expressed.
-----Original Message----- From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com ]On Behalf Of Jim Jewett Sent: Monday, 30 April 2007 1:29 PM To: Python 3000; Python Dev Subject: [Python-Dev] PEP 30XZ: Simplified Parsing
PEP: 30xz Title: Simplified Parsing Version: $Revision$ Last-Modified: $Date$ Author: Jim J. Jewett JimJJewett@gmail.com Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Content-Type: text/plain Created: 29-Apr-2007 Post-History: 29-Apr-2007
Python initially inherited its parsing from C. While this has been generally useful, there are some remnants which have been less useful for python, and should be eliminated. + Implicit String concatenation + Line continuation with "\" + 034 as an octal number (== decimal 28). Note that this is listed only for completeness; the decision to raise an Exception for leading zeros has already been made in the context of PEP XXX, about adding a binary literal.
Rationale for Removing Implicit String Concatenation
Implicit String concatentation can lead to confusing, or even silent, errors.  def f(arg1, arg2=None): pass f("abc" "def") # forgot the comma, no warning ... # silently becomes f("abcdef", None) or, using the scons build framework, sourceFiles = [ 'foo.c', 'bar.c', #...many lines omitted... 'q1000x.c'] It's a common mistake to leave off a comma, and then
scons complains that it can't find 'foo.cbar.c'. This is pretty bewildering behavior even if you *are* a Python programmer, and not everyone here is.
Note that in C, the implicit concatenation is more
justified; there is no other way to join strings without (at least) a function call.
In Python, strings are objects which support the __add__ operator; it is possible to write: "abc" + "def" Because these are literals, this addition can still be optimized away by the compiler. Guido indicated  that this change should be handled by
PEP, because there were a few edge cases with other string operators, such as the %. The resolution is to treat them the same as today.
("abc %s def" + "ghi" % var) # fails like today. # raises TypeError because of # precedence. (% before +) ("abc" + "def %s ghi" % var) # works like today;
precedence makes # the optimization more difficult to # recognize, but does not change the # semantics.
("abc %s def" + "ghi") % var # works like today, because of # precedence: () before % # CPython compiler can already # add the literals at
Rationale for Removing Explicit Line Continuation
A terminal "\" indicates that the logical line is continued on the following physical line (after whitespace). Note that a non-terminal "\" does not have this meaning,
even if the only additional characters are invisible whitespace. (Python depends heavily on *visible* whitespace at the beginning of a line; it does not otherwise depend on *invisible* terminal whitespace.) Adding whitespace after a "" will typically cause a syntax error rather than a silent bug, but it still isn't desirable.
The reason to keep "\" is that occasionally code looks better with a "\" than with a () pair. assert True, ( "This Paren is goofy") But realistically, that paren is no worse than a "\". The only advantage of "\" is that it is slightly more familiar to users of C-based languages. These same languages all also support line continuation with (), so reading code will not be a problem, and there will be one less rule to learn for people entirely new to programming.
Rationale for Removing Implicit Octal Literals
This decision should be covered by PEP ???, on numeric literals. It is mentioned here only for completeness. C treats integers beginning with "0" as octal, rather
than decimal. Historically, Python has inherited this usage. This has caused quite a few annoying bugs for people who forgot the rule, and tried to line up their constants.
a = 123 b = 024 # really only 20, because octal c = 245 In Python 3.0, the second line will instead raise a SyntaxError, because of the ambiguity. Instead, the line should be written as in one of the following ways: b = 24 # PEP 8 b = 24 # columns line up, for quick scanning b = 0t24 # really did want an Octal!
 Implicit String Concatenation, Jewett, Orendorff
 PEP 12, Sample reStructuredText PEP Template, Goodger, Warsaw http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0012  http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/
This document has been placed in the public domain.
Local Variables: mode: indented-text indent-tabs-mode: nil sentence-end-double-space: t fill-column: 70 coding: utf-8 End: _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/mhammond%40keypoint.com.au
Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/python-python-dev%40m.gman...