[Python-3000] Is this really a SyntaxError? (original) (raw)

Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Thu Jul 31 06:03:21 CEST 2008

Cool.

I hope others can review, and you should ask Barry if this is okay for beta3.

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc <amauryfa at gmail.com> wrote:

2008/7/30 Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org>:

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 2:34 AM, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc <amauryfa at gmail.com> wrote:

I hope this patch is simple enough for you:

Index: Grammar/Grammar =================================================================== --- Grammar/Grammar (revision 65298) +++ Grammar/Grammar (working copy) @@ -113,7 +113,9 @@ classdef: 'class' NAME ['(' [arglist] ')'] ':' suite -arglist: (argument ',')* (argument [',']| '*' test [',' '' test] | '' test) +arglist: (argument ',')* (argument [','] + |'' test (',' NAME '=' test) [',' '**' test] + |'**' test) argument: test [compfor] | test '=' test # Really [keyword '='] test compiter: compfor | compif

(and call pgen to rebuild the graminit.c) Positional arguments after the *args are explicitly disallowed: f(1, *[2, 3], 4, z=5) The syntax could make sense, but this would require more changes in the compiler, to properly order the parameters. Are you saying that after the above Grammar change, the code generator already does the right thing for Raymond's code? Yes! the ast builder simply collects items from the parenthesized sequence, and does not care about the ordering - except for an explicit "non-keyword arg after keyword arg". Then I say go for it -- but please do add new unit tests. Of course -- I was just requesting approval. I am working on a documentation patch as well, and filed http://bugs.python.org/issue3473 -- Amaury Forgeot d'Arc

-- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list