Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
Bruce is right.
I fixed "decorated", the duplicate "funcdef" and the "?" in r66527 and
r66528.
Bruce, usually adding comments with more issues, especially if they are
so small, is fine; however, since they may be overlooked you're free to
open
Bruce Frederiksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
The grammar definitions in the Language Reference are _not_ just a
straight copy of the Grammar. They have been reworked. (I don't know
why, perhaps to make it easier to understand)?
So the Grammar defines funcdef and classdef _without
Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
The language reference is merely a explanation of the the Grammar, so I
don't understand why you think it shouldn't be there. A 'decorated' node
contains a 'classdef' or 'fundef'.
___
Python tracker <[EM
Bruce Frederiksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
But the real Grammar doesn't include decorators on funcdef and classdef,
while the Language Reference document does. So the 'decorated' option
is not needed in the Language Reference (and, indeed, doesn't even seem
to be defined there).
Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
If you look at the real Grammar (in Grammar/Grammar), you will see that
this decorated is used in the grammar.
--
nosy: +benjamin.peterson
resolution: -> invalid
status: open -> closed
___
Pyth
New submission from Bruce Frederiksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
The python 3.0 Language Reference page describing compound_stmt
(http://docs.python.org/dev/3.0/reference/compound_stmts.html) includes
'decorated'. But the funcdef and classdef definitions both include
optional decorators. It looks lik
