Ezio Melotti added the comment:
Looking at the changes in the patch it seems to me that, in at least a few
cases, it's better to have a bare "invalid syntax" than a misleading error.
For example:
>>> dict(a = i for i in range(10))
+ SyntaxError: invalid syntax - ')' expected
The () are ok, the message is misleading.
>>> obj.None = 1
+SyntaxError: invalid syntax - name expected
'name' here is a bit vague.
>>> def f(x, None):
... pass
+SyntaxError: invalid syntax - ')' expected
>>> def f(*None):
... pass
+SyntaxError: invalid syntax - ')' expected
Here the () are ok too.
>>> def f(**None):
... pass
+SyntaxError: invalid syntax - name expected
Here I would have expected the "')' expected" like in the previous example, but
there's "name" instead (which is a bit better, albeit inconsistent).
I wouldn't consider this an improvement, but for other situations the error
message is probably useful.
I see 3 options here:
1) we find a way to show the expected token only when the message is not
misleading;
2) if the expected token is useful more often than it is misleading, then we
could apply the patch as is;
3) if it is misleading more often than it is useful, it's probably better to
reject the patch.
----------
nosy: +ezio.melotti
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1634034>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
