A modest indentation proposal

[Steve Holden]

"Erann Gat" <gat at jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:gat-3011011406550001 at eglaptop.jpl.nasa.gov...
> In article <slrna0fv3m.2ke.grey at teleute.dmiyu.org>,
> morpheus at here.not.there wrote:
>
> >     It is not backwards compatible if it solves your problem and if it
is it
> > doesn't solve your problem.  As you can see in the second test the first
line
> > does not denote the end of the block because of the semicolon at the
end.
> > This is legal now.  Under your proposal it would become illegal breaking
> > compatibility.
>
> No, it would not become "illegal" under my proposal.  Please go back and
> re-read what I wrote, and pay particular attention to the word "optional".
>
Perhaps it wouldn't be "illegal". I think the point was that there may well
be existing Python programs which are currently syntactically correct whose
meaning would be altered by the adoption of your rule. If under present
syntax I write

    def a(x,y):
        stm1
        stm2
    stm3;

this is currently legal Python in which stm3 is not a part of the function
body. Would your rule treat this as a syntax error, or observe the
indentation and accept it? Or something else?

regards
 Steve
--
http://www.holdenweb.com/