> Well, I guess I would care enough :-) Martin has to change the PEP > though, since he's the PEP author. I don't like having an equal sign there, but I can add this as an alternative and leave it for BDFL pronouncement (and count votes in favour or against). In any case, I'd need to know what the exact proposed change to PEP 244 is. The syntax currently reads directive_statement: 'directive' NAME [atom] [';'] NEWLINE How do you want this to change? > I think that supporting the typical "key = value" format is > quite reasonable for setting flags in the compiler. The PEP's > original idea of replacing your "from __future__ import spam" > does not require this format, since is only needs to support > switches. Actually, based on Tim's objections, I need the syntax in a different way: directive transitional generators Here, "directive transitional" indicates that a transitional feature is being activated, followed by the name of the feature. This is in line with directive transitional nested_scopes Spelling them as directive transitional = nested_scopes # or directive transitional = 'nested_scopes' doesn't sound right, since I'm not assigning to "transitional". Of course, since this directive is spelled "from __future__ import" these days, the only remaining application for directives is the unicodeencoding directive. I'm just pointing out that adding an equal sign likely restricts the applicability of directives. Regards, Martin
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