On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 09:44:12AM +0200, Thomas Wouters wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 10:53:38PM -0700, Huaiyu Zhu wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Paul Prescod wrote: > > > > It all depends on who works on it and how hard they work. I really can't > > > So can some one answer this question for sure: > > > Is it definitely possible to introduce .* ./ etc without much more > > difficulty than introducing @* and @/ and so on? > > No, I don't think it's possible without significantly restructuring the > Grammar. However, Vladimir may prove me wrong, he has before ! :-) The > problem is the recursive-descent parser Python is using, I don't think it > can see the difference between The issue isn't with recursive-descent, and this would be a relatively easy change. You would introduce a new token "./" to accomplish this (call it DOTSLASH). Thus, . / maps to (DOT, SLASH,) while ./ maps to (DOTSLASH,). Python already does this to differentiate between < and <<. Most languages do, actually. What is really weird is that Python sees the ellipsis value/operator/ whatever-the-heck-it-is as three individual DOT tokens rather than a single token. Thus, the following two statements are equal: a[...] a[. . .] Whacky :-) Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
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