Op 24-11-15 om 17:56 schreef Ian Kelly: > >> So on what grounds would you argue that () is not a literal. > > This enumerates exactly what literals are in Python: > > https://docs.python.org/3/reference/lexical_analysis.html#literals > > I think it's a rather pedantic point, though. How are nuances of the > grammar at all related to user expectations? >
I think that enumaration is too limited. The section starts with: Literals are notations for constant values of some built-in types. () satisfies that definition, which is confirmed by the byte code produced for it. -- Antoon. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
