On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Greg <greg.ew...@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 _______________________________________________ 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
