On 22 February 2014 00:59, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
The deferral currently has this snippet:
"""In order to ensure compatibility with future versions, ensure that any consecutive except operators are parenthesized to guarantee the interpretation you expect."""
That's not a reasonable expectation - either the parentheses have to be mandatory as part of the deferral, or else multiple except clause support needs to be listed as rejected rather than deferred.
I've spent the better part of the last hour debating this in my head. It's basically a question of simplicity versus future flexibility: either keep the syntax clean and deny the multiple-except-clause option, or mandate the parens and permit it. The first option has, in my own head, the stronger case - this is designed for simplicity, and it wouldn't be that big a deal to completely reject multiple except clauses and simply require that the
Yep, moving multiple exceptions to the "Rejected subproposals" section would work for me. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia