On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > You can call me weird, but I *like* fine-tuning operator binding rules to suit my intuition for an operator. 'await' is not arithmetic, so I don't see why it should be lumped in with '-'. It's not like the proposed grammar change introducing 'await' is earth-shattering in complexity. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ 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
