[Python-checkins] r55126 - peps/trunk/pep-3125.txt

georg.brandl python-checkins at python.org
Fri May 4 21:26:31 CEST 2007


Author: georg.brandl
Date: Fri May  4 21:26:28 2007
New Revision: 55126

Modified:
   peps/trunk/pep-3125.txt
Log:
Updated PEP 3125 from Jim Jewett.


Modified: peps/trunk/pep-3125.txt
==============================================================================
--- peps/trunk/pep-3125.txt	(original)
+++ peps/trunk/pep-3125.txt	Fri May  4 21:26:28 2007
@@ -5,99 +5,236 @@
 Author: Jim J. Jewett <JimJJewett at gmail.com>
 Status: Draft
 Type: Standards Track
-Content-Type: text/plain
+Content-Type: text/x-rst
 Created: 29-Apr-2007
-Post-History: 29-Apr-2007, 30-Apr-2007
+Post-History: 29-Apr-2007, 30-Apr-2007, 04-May-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.
+
+This PEP proposes elimination of terminal ``\`` as a marker for line
+continuation.
+
+
+Motivation
+==========
+
+One goal for Python 3000 should be to simplify the language by
+removing unnecessary or duplicated features.  There are currently
+several ways to indicate that a logical line is continued on the
+following physical line.
+
+The other continuation methods are easily explained as a logical
+consequence of the semantics they provide; ``\`` is simply an escape
+character that needs to be memorized.
+
+
+Existing Line Continuation Methods
+==================================
+
+
+Parenthetical Expression - ``([{}])``
+-------------------------------------
+
+Open a parenthetical expression.  It doesn't matter whether people
+view the "line" as continuing; they do immediately recognize that the
+expression needs to be closed before the statement can end.
+
+Examples using each of ``()``, ``[]``, and ``{}``::
+
+    def fn(long_argname1,
+           long_argname2):
+        settings = {"background": "random noise",
+                    "volume": "barely audible"}
+        restrictions = ["Warrantee void if used",
+                        "Notice must be received by yesterday",
+                        "Not responsible for sales pitch"]
+
+Note that it is always possible to parenthesize an expression, but it
+can seem odd to parenthesize an expression that needs parentheses only
+for the line break::
+
+    assert val>4, (
+        "val is too small")
+
+
+Triple-Quoted Strings
+---------------------
+
+Open a triple-quoted string; again, people recognize that the string
+needs to finish before the next statement starts.
+
+    banner_message = """
+        Satisfaction Guaranteed,
+        or DOUBLE YOUR MONEY BACK!!!
+
 
-    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.
 
-    This PEP proposes elimination of terminal "\" as a marker for
-    line continuation.
 
-    
-Rationale for Removing Explicit Line Continuation
 
-    A terminal "\" indicates that the logical line is continued on the
-    following physical line (after whitespace).
+                                        some minor restrictions apply"""
 
-    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.
+Terminal ``\`` in the general case
+----------------------------------
 
-        assert True, (
-            "This Paren is goofy")
+A terminal ``\`` indicates that the logical line is continued on the
+following physical line (after whitespace).  There are no particular
+semantics associated with this.  This form is never required, although
+it may look better (particularly for people with a C language
+background) in some cases::
 
-    But realistically, that parenthesis 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.
+    >>> assert val>4, \
+            "val is too small"
 
+Also note that the ``\`` must be the final character in the line.  If
+your editor navigation can add whitespace to the end of a line, that
+invisible change will alter the semantics of the program.
+Fortunately, the typical result is only a syntax error, rather than a
+runtime bug::
 
-Alternate proposal
+    >>> assert val>4, \ 
+            "val is too small"
 
-    Several people have suggested alternative ways of marking the line
-    end.  Most of these were rejected for not actually simplifying things.
+    SyntaxError: unexpected character after line continuation character
 
-    The one exception was to let any unfished expression signify a line
-    continuation, possibly in conjunction with increased indentation
+This PEP proposes to eliminate this redundant and potentially
+confusing alternative.
 
-        assert True,            # comma implies tuple implies continue
-            "No goofy parens"
 
-    The objections to this are:
+Terminal ``\`` within a string
+------------------------------
+      
+A terminal ``\`` within a single-quoted string, at the end of the
+line.  This is arguably a special case of the terminal ``\``, but it
+is a special case that may be worth keeping.
 
-        - The amount of whitespace may be contentious; expression
-          continuation should not be confused with opening a new
-          suite.
+    >>> "abd\
+     def"
+    'abd def'
 
-        - The "expression continuation" markers are not as clearly marked
-          in Python as the grouping punctuation "(), [], {}" marks are.
+* Pro: Many of the objections to removing ``\`` termination were
+  really just objections to removing it within literal strings;
+  several people clarified that they want to keep this literal-string
+  usage, but don't mind losing the general case.
 
-              "abc" +   # Plus needs another operand, so it continues
-                  "def"
+* Pro: The use of ``\`` for an escape character within strings is well
+  known.
 
-              "abc"       # String ends an expression, so
-                  + "def" # this is a syntax error.
+* Contra: But note that this particular usage is odd, because the
+  escaped character (the newline) is invisible, and the special
+  treatment is to delete the character.  That said, the ``\`` of
+  ``\(newline)`` is still an escape which changes the meaning of the
+  following character.
 
-        - Guido says so.  [1]  His reasoning is that it may not even be
-          feasible.  (See next reason.)
 
-        - As a technical concern, supporting this would require allowing
-          INDENT or DEDENT tokens anywhere, or at least in a widely
-          expanded (and ill-defined) set of locations.  While this is
-          in some sense a concern only for the internal parsing
-          implementation, it would be a major new source of complexity.  [1]
+Alternate Proposals
+===================
+
+Several people have suggested alternative ways of marking the line
+end.  Most of these were rejected for not actually simplifying things.
+
+The one exception was to let any unfinished expression signify a line
+continuation, possibly in conjunction with increased indentation.
+
+This is attractive because it is a generalization of the rule for
+parentheses.
+
+The initial objections to this were:
+
+- The amount of whitespace may be contentious; expression continuation
+  should not be confused with opening a new suite.
+
+- The "expression continuation" markers are not as clearly marked in
+  Python as the grouping punctuation "(), [], {}" marks are::
+
+      # Plus needs another operand, so the line continues
+      "abc" +   
+          "def"
+
+      # String ends an expression, so the line does not
+      # not continue.  The next line is a syntax error because
+      # unary plus does not apply to strings.
+      "abc"       
+          + "def" 
+
+- Guido objected for technical reasons.  [#dedent]_ The most obvious
+  implementation would require allowing INDENT or DEDENT tokens
+  anywhere, or at least in a widely expanded (and ill-defined) set of
+  locations.  While this is of concern only for the internal parsing
+  mechanism (rather than for users), it would be a major new source of
+  complexity.
+
+Andrew Koenig then pointed out [#lexical]_ a better implementation
+strategy, and said that it had worked quite well in other
+languages. [#snocone]_ The improved suggestion boiled down to:
+
+    The whitespace that follows an (operator or) open bracket or
+    parenthesis can include newline characters.
+
+    It would be implemented at a very low lexical level -- even before
+    the decision is made to turn a newline followed by spaces into an
+    INDENT or DEDENT token.
+
+There is still some concern that it could mask bugs, as in this
+example [#guidobughide]_::
+
+    # Used to be y+1, the 1 got dropped.  Syntax Error (today)
+    # would become nonsense.
+    x = y+    
+    f(x)        
+
+Requiring that the continuation be indented more than the initial line
+would add both safety and complexity.
+
+
+Open Issues
+===========
+
+* Should ``\``-continuation be removed even inside strings?
+
+* Should the continuation markers be expanded from just ([{}]) to
+  include lines ending with an operator?
+
+* As a safety measure, should the continuation line be required to be
+  more indented than the initial line?
 
 
 References
+==========
+        
+..  [#dedent] (email subject) PEP 30XZ: Simplified Parsing, van Rossum
+    http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2007-April/007063.html
+
+..  [#lexical] (email subject) PEP-3125 -- remove backslash
+    continuation, Koenig
+    http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2007-May/007237.html
+    
+..  [#snocone] The Snocone Programming Language, Koenig
+    http://www.snobol4.com/report.htm
 
-    [1] PEP 30XZ: Simplified Parsing, van Rossum
-        http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2007-April/007063.html
+..  [#guidobughide] (email subject) PEP-3125 -- remove backslash
+    continuation, van Rossum
+    http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2007-May/007244.html
 
 
 Copyright
+=========
 
-    This document has been placed in the public domain.
+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:
+..
+   Local Variables:
+   mode: indented-text
+   indent-tabs-mode: nil
+   sentence-end-double-space: t
+   fill-column: 70
+   coding: utf-8
+   End:


More information about the Python-checkins mailing list