On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Devin Jeanpierre
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Greg
wrote: It's not about requiring or not requiring parens. It's about making the simplest possible change to the grammar necessary to achieve the desired goals. Keeping the grammar simple makes it easy for humans to reason about.
The question is whether syntactically disallowing certain constructs that are unlikely to be needed is a desirable enough goal to be worth complicating the grammar. You think it is, some others of us think it's not.
+1. It seems weird to add a whole new precedence level when an existing one works fine. Accidentally negating a future/deferred is not a significant source of errors, so I don't get why that would be a justifying example.
You can call me weird, but I *like* fine-tuning operator binding rules to suit my intuition for an operator. 'await' is not arithmetic, so I don't see why it should be lumped in with '-'. It's not like the proposed grammar change introducing 'await' is earth-shattering in complexity. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)