Dr. Dobb's Python-URL! - weekly Python news and links (Mar 26)

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:17:11 +0000, phil hunt <philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:05:58 GMT, Courageous <jkraska at san.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>And then, when you begin to flesh out your code, you would have to 
>>>get rid of the extraneous passes you didn't want to add (assuming 
>>>you are like me) in the first place. So the with-pass version 
>>>requires more effort, and is more verbose, for no good reason.
>>
>>The reasons are related to the implementation and not the design
>>of Python, I believe.
>
>Oh?
>
>Can it really be hard to modify python so that pass is optional?
>
>The relvant file is grammar, line 68 of which reads:
>
>   suite: simple_stmt | NEWLINE INDENT stmt+ DEDENT
>
>I wonder if I could change this to something like:
>
>   suite: simple_stmt | NEWLINE INDENT stmt+ DEDENT | NEWLINE
>
>(It's current;ly compiling; i will get back on this)

I've just tried:

suite: simple_stmt | NEWLINE INDENT stmt+ DEDENT | NEWLINE 
suite: simple_stmt | NEWLINE INDENT stmt* DEDENT          
suite: simple_stmt | NEWLINE [INDENT stmt+ DEDENT]      

None of which work. Mind you, I don't know the language of the 
python parser-generator, having never seen it before, and so I am 
just guessing things that looks like they might work. No doubt 
someone more familiar with it could do better.

-- 
<"><"><"> Philip Hunt <philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk> <"><"><">
"I would guess that he really believes whatever is politically 
advantageous for him to believe." 
                        -- Alison Brooks, referring to Michael
                              Portillo, on soc.history.what-if