[issue26156] Bad name into power operator syntax

Changes by Serhiy Storchaka : -- resolution: -> fixed stage: commit review -> resolved status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker

[issue26156] Bad name into power operator syntax

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset e876ff4e9e95 by Serhiy Storchaka in branch '3.5': Issue #26156: Make expressions grammar description more semantically correct. https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/e876ff4e9e95 New changeset 61e3160310ae by Serhiy Storchaka in branch 'default': Issue

[issue26156] Bad name into power operator syntax

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: I think "await_expr" is good. It is not new that the keyword is a part of the grammar symbol name (yield_expression, comp_for, and_expr, or_test, lambda_expr). -- assignee: docs@python -> serhiy.storchaka ___

[issue26156] Bad name into power operator syntax

Guido Treutwein added the comment: I'm with David here, in that a change would improve ease of comprehension: I still find it strange, that the grammar symbol has the same name as the keyword (or in the proposed version keyword+'expr'), which is never done on more widely used levels. I would

[issue26156] Bad name into power operator syntax

R. David Murray added the comment: Sounds like it is a bit more than just confusion: given that power can be used outside a coroutine but await can't, Serhiy's formulation would seem to me to be more semantically correct, even if syntactically it is the same as the current. I think it would

[issue26156] Bad name into power operator syntax

Robert Jordens added the comment: Ack to the new patch. It is semantically confusing that the await expression also served as the power base without any await. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue26156] Bad name into power operator syntax

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: The confusion is in the definition of await expression with optional "await". Without "await" the expression doesn't suspend the execution of coroutine. And await expression can only be used inside a coroutine function, but the power operator can be used

[issue26156] Bad name into power operator syntax

Zachary Ware added the comment: +1 for await_expr -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list

[issue26156] Bad name into power operator syntax

Yury Selivanov added the comment: Let's call it "await_expr" -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list

[issue26156] Bad name into power operator syntax

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: May be "w_expr"? ("a_expr" is already used for addition level). -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue26156] Bad name into power operator syntax

Zachary Ware added the comment: I agree that what is currently in the docs is technically correct. The section on the power operator: power ::= await ["**" u_expr] should be read as: power ::= (["await"] primary) ["**" u_expr] just as the definition of 'u_expr' below should be read

[issue26156] Bad name into power operator syntax

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: But to avoid confusion I propose following patch. This may be more correct, since it is strange to name the expression without "await" "await expression". -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file42741/issue26156_await_power.patch

[issue26156] Bad name into power operator syntax

Yury Selivanov added the comment: Fwiw, I'm -1 on changing this. I think that the current names are correct. -- nosy: +Yury.Selivanov ___ Python tracker

[issue26156] Bad name into power operator syntax

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: The docs looks correct to me. It reflects the fact that the "await" keyword has higher priority than the power operator. "await a ** b" is identical to "(await a) ** b", not "await (a ** b)". -- nosy: +serhiy.storchaka

[issue26156] Bad name into power operator syntax

Changes by R. David Murray : -- resolution: not a bug -> stage: resolved -> commit review status: closed -> open ___ Python tracker

[issue26156] Bad name into power operator syntax

Robert Jordens added the comment: That should have read "... should _not_ be closed." -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue26156] Bad name into power operator syntax

Robert Jordens added the comment: The original bug report is (apart from spelling) correct. This is a bug and it should be closed. Please reopen. This patch reverts the erroneous change in: changeset: 96185:548d5704fcb3 user:Yury Selivanov date:Thu

[issue26156] Bad name into power operator syntax

Guido Treutwein added the comment: Yurys answer and resolution misses the point. Nobody complained about the await operator. Fact is, that in the _power_ operator (chapter 6.5) as base specification now "await" is given. This is likely to be an inadvertent copy of the previous chapter, makes

[issue26156] Bad name into power operator syntax

New submission from Chema Cortés: The documentation erroneously changes "primary" for "away" in the power operator syntax: https://docs.python.org/3.6/reference/expressions.html#the-power-operator https://docs.python.org/3.5/reference/expressions.html#the-power-operator -- assignee:

[issue26156] Bad name into power operator syntax

Yury Selivanov added the comment: The docs are correct. See the definition of the "await" expression: https://docs.python.org/3.6/reference/expressions.html#await-expression -- nosy: +yselivanov resolution: -> not a bug stage: -> resolved status: open -> closed