[Python-Dev] PEP 492 vs. PEP 3152, new round (original) (raw)
Yury Selivanov yselivanov.ml at gmail.com
Thu Apr 30 02:04:37 CEST 2015
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 492 vs. PEP 3152, new round
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 492 vs. PEP 3152, new round
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Guido,
On 2015-04-29 7:52 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Yury Selivanov <yselivanov.ml at gmail.com> wrote:
Nathaniel,
On 2015-04-29 7:35 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
What I do feel strongly about is that whatever syntax we end up with, there should besome accurate human-readable description ofwhat it is. AFAICT the PEP currently doesn't have that. How to define human-readable description of how unary minus operator works? In a PEP you should probably give grammar that is not the actual grammar from the implementation, but matches the grammar used in the reference manual on docs.python.org. Will do!
Thanks, Yury
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 492 vs. PEP 3152, new round
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 492 vs. PEP 3152, new round
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]