[Python-3000] PEP 30XZ: Simplified Parsing

[Guido van Rossum]

[-python-dev]

I think these should be two separate proposals, with more specific
names (e.g. "remove implicit string concatenation" and "remove
backslash continuation"). There's no need to mention the octal thing
if it's already a separate PEP.

On 4/29/07, Jim Jewett <jimjjewett at gmail.com> wrote:
> PEP: 30xz
> Title: Simplified Parsing
> Version: $Revision$
> Last-Modified: $Date$
> Author: Jim J. Jewett <JimJJewett at gmail.com>
> Status: Draft
> Type: Standards Track
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Created: 29-Apr-2007
> Post-History: 29-Apr-2007
>
>
> Abstract
>
>     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. [1]
>
>         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 [2] 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 compile-time.
>
>
> 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!
>
>
> References
>
>     [1] Implicit String Concatenation, Jewett, Orendorff
>         http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2007-April/000397.html
>
>     [2] PEP 12, Sample reStructuredText PEP Template, Goodger, Warsaw
>         http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0012
>
>     [3] http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/
>
>
>
> Copyright
>
>     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-3000 mailing list
> Python-3000 at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
> Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/guido%40python.org
>


-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)