>Isaac Morland wrote: > This would avoid accidentally leaving out commas in list construction, > but tuple construction would still have the same problem. Tuple construction already has a "no comma, no tuple" problem. That problem remains, but as soon as you add a comma, you'll get the same protection as you get for lists. > And it's still a change in the language which would probably affect > lots of existing code. Having read and written tons of existing code, I'm not so sure about that. A tool that wraps backslash-escaped blocks in parentheses would take care of most cases. What's left after that is probably ambiguous to a human reader anyway. <F>
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