RetroSearch Browse

Fri May 1 03:56:21 CEST 2015 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-May/139734.html

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.

-- Devin

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-May/139734.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 492 vs. PEP 3152, new round