[Python-3000] Is this really a SyntaxError?

[Guido van Rossum]

Cool.

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
> http://bugs.python.org/issue3473
>
> --
> Amaury Forgeot d'Arc
>



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