A simple single line, triple-quoted comment is giving syntax error. Why?
marko at pacujo.net
Fri Apr 3 09:13:11 CEST 2015
Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com>:
> I know that it started in response to my statement that string literal
> concatenation wasn't an expression as such, but I have no idea what
> either side of the current debate is, nor how it affects my
> statement's validity.
This is what I have gathered:
- A Python expression cannot directly follow another expression. A
connector is required by the syntax.
- That's untrue:
* "abc" is an expression
* "def" is an expression
* "abc" "def" is an expression
- Merging "abc" "def" is a matter of lexical analysis.
- No, it's right there in the syntax definition.
- Well, ok, however, the parse tree for "abc" "def" is not
Rather, the correct parse tree is:
Thus, a Python expression still is not directly following another
My own take: all sides are correct. Thomas is most correct and is being
obnoxious about it.
1. A lexical analyzer *could* take care of concatenating string
literals. It would have to be smart enough to handle intervening
comments. On the other hand, the lexical analyzer is just a part of
the parser; the line between them often is blurred.
2. The counterexample "abc" "def" *does* demonstrate that expressions
can at times follow each other immediately. It is a nice point even
if not all that consequential.
* ord is an expression
* ("a") is an expression
* ord("a") is an expression
3. Arguing about definitions is silly. Is 0 a natural number? Is 1 a
More information about the Python-list