[Python-Dev] PEP 492 vs. PEP 3152, new round

[Guido van Rossum]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Greg <greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz> 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)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20150430/5905c142/attachment-0001.html>