FWIW, it is common to have syntax checks in ast.c.
Especially situations like class ``C(x for x in [1]): ...`` I think would
be hard to prohibit in Grammar.
Since anyway we have many checks in ast.c already, I wouldn't care much
about implementing these corner cases in Grammar.
--
Ivan
___
13.11.17 02:00, Guido van Rossum пише:
It's hard to keep those two in sync, since the actual Grammar file is
constrained by being strictly LL(1)... Can you get someone else to
review the implementation?
I haven't change the grammar, just have changed checks in the CST to AST
transformer. Mayb
It's hard to keep those two in sync, since the actual Grammar file is
constrained by being strictly LL(1)... Can you get someone else to review
the implementation?
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/
12.11.17 18:57, Guido van Rossum пише:
Sounds good to me.
Thanks! Here is an implementation: https://bugs.python.org/issue32012.
I have found that formally trailing comma after generator expression is
not allowed by the grammar defined in the language reference:
call: `primary` "(" [`arg
Sounds good to me.
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Serhiy Storchaka
wrote:
> Initially generator expressions always had to be written inside
> parentheses, as documented in PEP 289 [1]. The additional parenthesis could
> be omitted on calls with only one argument, because in this case the
> gen
Initially generator expressions always had to be written inside
parentheses, as documented in PEP 289 [1]. The additional parenthesis
could be omitted on calls with only one argument, because in this case
the generator expression already is written inside parentheses. You
could write just `list
