On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 2:27 AM Stephen J. Turnbull <
turnbull.stephen...@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:
> Are you sure that shouldn't be "I was told to expect three things, but
> I found six?" ;-)
>
> And why not parse a_string using the "grammar" "{x}{y}{z}" as {'x':
> 2345, 'y': 6, 'z': 7}? That's perfectly valid *interpreting the
> 'grammar' as a format string", and therefore might very well be
> expected. Of course there's probably a rule in parse that {x} is an
> abbreviation for {x:s}.
>
I'm sure there is. but if it were me, I would probably require a format
specifier.
> Regexps are hard for people to interpret, but they're well-defined and
> one *can* learn them.
I'm sure that's truer, but I know I haven't yet ;-). But it's only been 30
years or so ....
> If we're going to go beyond regexps in the
> stdlib (and I'm certainly in favor of that!), let's have a parser that
> uses a grammar notation that is rarely ambiguous in the way that
> format strings *usually* are,
That was my point originally. but in fact, we already DO have regex. So
what is the goal of a new syntax? It's certainly not more power or
flexibility.
So I think I'm actually coming around -- it is pretty nice to be able to
use a parsing language that's familiar and simple, even if it doesn't give
you full flexibility.
-CHB
--
Christopher Barker, PhD
Python Language Consulting
- Teaching
- Scientific Software Development
- Desktop GUI and Web Development
- wxPython, numpy, scipy, Cython
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/2FMMVYU7MVITFLTHYX4Z3RCCCCG7ATRS/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
