Nathaniel, On 2015-04-29 7:58 PM, Nathaniel Smith 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 be*some* >>> accurate human-readable description of*what it is*. AFAICT the PEP >>> currently doesn't have that. >> How to define human-readable description of how unary >> minus operator works? > Hah, good question :-). Of course we all learned how to parse > arithmetic in school, so perhaps it's a bit cheating to refer to that > knowledge. Except of course basically all our users *do* have that > knowledge (or else are forced to figure it out anyway). So I would be > happy with a description of "await" that just says "it's like unary > minus but higher precedence". > > Even if we put aside our trained intuitions about arithmetic, I think > it's correct to say that the way unary minus is parsed is: everything > to the right of it that has a tighter precedence gets collected up and > parsed as an expression, and then it takes that expression as its > argument. Still pretty simple. > Well, await is defined exactly like that ;) Anyways, I'll follow Guido's suggestion to define await in the PEP the same way we define other syntax in python docs. Yury
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4