Guido van Rossum added the comment: Just like for other binary operators (except for the ones mentioned as always needing spaces), the spaces around ":" are neither mandatory nor objectionable. I am not making up a new rule, this is how I've always thought -- we just have to make it explicit that x[1: n] is wrong.
How about this: - However, in a slice the colon acts like a binary operator, and should have equal amounts on either side (treating it as the operator with the lowest priority). In an extended slice, both colons must have the same amount of spacing applied. Exception: when a slice parameter is omitted, the space is omitted. :: Yes:: ham[1:9], ham[1:9:3], ham[:9:3], ham[1::3], ham[1:9:] ham[lower:upper], ham[lower:upper:], ham[lower::step] ham[lower+offset : upper+offset] ham[: upper_fn(x) : step_fn(x)], ham[:: step_fn(x)] ham[lower + offset : upper + offset] No:: ham[lower + offset:upper + offset] ham[1: 9], ham[1 :9], ham[1:9 :3] ham[lower : : upper] ham[ : upper] ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue22316> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com