Nathaniel,
On 2015-04-29 7:58 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Yury Selivanov <yselivanov...@gmail.com> wrote:
Nathaniel,
On 2015-04-29 7:35 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
What I do feel strongly about
is that whatever syntax we end up with, there should be*some*
accurate human-readable description of*what it is*. AFAICT the PEP
currently doesn't have that.
How to define human-readable description of how unary
minus operator works?
Hah, good question :-). Of course we all learned how to parse
arithmetic in school, so perhaps it's a bit cheating to refer to that
knowledge. Except of course basically all our users *do* have that
knowledge (or else are forced to figure it out anyway). So I would be
happy with a description of "await" that just says "it's like unary
minus but higher precedence".
Even if we put aside our trained intuitions about arithmetic, I think
it's correct to say that the way unary minus is parsed is: everything
to the right of it that has a tighter precedence gets collected up and
parsed as an expression, and then it takes that expression as its
argument. Still pretty simple.
Well, await is defined exactly like that ;)
Anyways, I'll follow Guido's suggestion to define
await in the PEP the same way we define other syntax
in python docs.
Yury
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
