PEP-308 a "simplicity-first" alternative

[holger krekel]

Andrew Koenig wrote:
> holger> Inspired by "do the simplest thing that can possibly work" i
> holger> now think that
> 
> holger>         x and y else z
> 
> holger> might just do it and avoid the need for a new construct.  
> 
> I thought so too when I first saw it, but now I'm less sure.
> For example, what is the meaning of

Damn, you get to the point where i was too lazy to think it out :-)

> 
>         w and x and y else z

        (w and x) and y else z

should be the meaning. 
 
>         w and x and y else z else a

SyntaxError because it would be grouped as

         ((w and x) and y else z) else a

>         (x and y) else z
SyntaxError aka "else requires preceding 'x and y' part".

Or in Grammar speek:

    and_test: not_test ('and' not_test ['else' not_test])*

as far as i see it. 

    holger