[Python-Dev] PEP 492 vs. PEP 3152, new round (original) (raw)

Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Fri May 1 05:09:41 CEST 2015

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda at gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Greg <greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > It's not about requiring or not requiring parens. It's about > making the simplest possible change to the grammar necessary > to achieve the desired goals. Keeping the grammar simple > makes it easy for humans to reason about. > > The question is whether syntactically disallowing certain > constructs that are unlikely to be needed is a desirable > enough goal to be worth complicating the grammar. You think > it is, some others of us think it's not.

+1. It seems weird to add a whole new precedence level when an existing one works fine. Accidentally negating a future/deferred is not a significant source of errors, so I don't get why that would be a justifying example.

You can call me weird, but I like fine-tuning operator binding rules to suit my intuition for an operator. 'await' is not arithmetic, so I don't see why it should be lumped in with '-'. It's not like the proposed grammar change introducing 'await' is earth-shattering in complexity.

-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20150430/5905c142/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list