Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #38889
| Path | csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news1.tnib.de!feed.news.tnib.de!news.tnib.de!newsfeed.freenet.ag!news2.euro.net!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| Return-Path | <stephenwlin@gmail.com> |
| X-Original-To | python-list@python.org |
| Delivered-To | python-list@mail.python.org |
| X-Spam-Status | OK 0.002 |
| X-Spam-Evidence | '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'sufficient': 0.05; 'expressions': 0.07; 'parser': 0.07; 'incorrect': 0.09; 'parsed': 0.09; 'to:addr:comp.lang.python': 0.09; 'warn': 0.09; 'cc:addr :python-list': 0.10; "'()'": 0.16; '2),': 0.16; 'literals:': 0.16; 'none),': 0.16; 'restricting': 0.16; 'sees': 0.16; 'subject:)?': 0.16; 'syntax.': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.17; 'basically': 0.17; 'cc:2**0': 0.23; 'statement': 0.23; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.25; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.25; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.26; 'dictionary': 0.29; 'indentation': 0.29; 'relies': 0.29; 'thursday,': 0.30; 'expect': 0.31; 'could': 0.32; 'right?': 0.33; 'that,': 0.34; 'received:google.com': 0.34; 'received:209.85': 0.35; 'next': 0.35; 'ability': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'subject: (': 0.36; 'level': 0.37; 'received:209': 0.37; 'received:209.85.216': 0.37; 'subject:: ': 0.38; 'some': 0.38; 'where': 0.40; 'from:no real name:2**0': 0.60; 'within': 0.64; 'following.': 0.65; '2013': 0.84; 'loses': 0.84; 'received:209.85.216.184': 0.84 |
| X-Received | by 10.49.1.43 with SMTP id 11mr15670qej.29.1360879299529; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:01:39 -0800 (PST) |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Date | Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:01:39 -0800 (PST) |
| In-Reply-To | <mailman.1779.1360868336.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| Complaints-To | groups-abuse@google.com |
| Injection-Info | glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=74.108.115.166; posting-account=8IvmGwoAAADD6gKwJqZ9X0RQwAp81c9x |
| References | <2e07acfb-4f48-4a27-9b06-3d8103325c0f@googlegroups.com> <mailman.1754.1360819410.2939.python-list@python.org> <mailman.1756.1360821290.2939.python-list@python.org> <511c9a66$0$11096$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> <mailman.1779.1360868336.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| User-Agent | G2/1.0 |
| X-Google-Web-Client | true |
| X-Google-IP | 74.108.115.166 |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 |
| Subject | Re: Suggested feature: slice syntax within tuples (or even more generally)? |
| From | stephenwlin@gmail.com |
| To | comp.lang.python@googlegroups.com |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 |
| Cc | Python <python-list@python.org> |
| X-BeenThere | python-list@python.org |
| X-Mailman-Version | 2.1.15 |
| Precedence | list |
| List-Id | General discussion list for the Python programming language <python-list.python.org> |
| List-Unsubscribe | <http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=unsubscribe> |
| List-Archive | <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/> |
| List-Post | <mailto:python-list@python.org> |
| List-Help | <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=help> |
| List-Subscribe | <http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=subscribe> |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1787.1360879302.2939.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
| Lines | 43 |
| NNTP-Posting-Host | 2001:888:2000:d::a6 |
| X-Trace | 1360879302 news.xs4all.nl 6862 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:38840 |
| X-Complaints-To | abuse@xs4all.nl |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.lang.python:38889 |
Show key headers only | View raw
On Thursday, February 14, 2013 1:58:06 PM UTC-5, Ian wrote:
>
> That's not ambiguous, because the former is simply invalid syntax.
>
> However, consider the following.
>
>
>
> if 1: 2:
>
>
>
> That could be either a one-line if statement where the condition is 1
>
> and the body is slice(2, None), or it could be the beginning of a
>
> multi-line if block where the condition is slice(1, 2). If the parser
>
> sees that, should it expect the next line to be indented or not? If
>
> it relies on indentation to determine this, then it loses some ability
>
> to warn the user of incorrect indentation.
>
>
>
> Then we have dictionary literals:
>
>
>
> {1:2:3}
>
>
>
> Should that be read as dict([(slice(1, 2), 3)]) or dict([(1, slice(2,
>
> 3))])? Or even set([slice(1, 2, 3)])?
>
Restricting this to within the top level of ()-enclosed expressions would be sufficient to eliminate all ambiguities, though, right? Basically all that needs to change is for expressions within '()' to be parsed identically as are currently parsed in '[]'.
-Stephen
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Suggested feature: slice syntax within tuples (or even more generally)? stephenwlin@gmail.com - 2013-02-13 11:00 -0800
Re: Suggested feature: slice syntax within tuples (or even more generally)? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-02-14 00:23 -0500
Re: Suggested feature: slice syntax within tuples (or even more generally)? stephenwlin@gmail.com - 2013-02-13 21:54 -0800
Re: Suggested feature: slice syntax within tuples (or even more generally)? stephenwlin@gmail.com - 2013-02-13 21:54 -0800
Re: Suggested feature: slice syntax within tuples (or even more generally)? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-02-14 07:32 +0000
Re: Suggested feature: slice syntax within tuples (or even more generally)? stephenwlin@gmail.com - 2013-02-14 00:36 -0800
Re: Suggested feature: slice syntax within tuples (or even more generally)? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-02-14 08:03 +0000
Re: Suggested feature: slice syntax within tuples (or even more generally)? stephenwlin@gmail.com - 2013-02-14 01:08 -0800
Re: Suggested feature: slice syntax within tuples (or even more generally)? stephenwlin@gmail.com - 2013-02-14 01:26 -0800
Re: Suggested feature: slice syntax within tuples (or even more generally)? Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-02-14 11:58 -0700
Re: Suggested feature: slice syntax within tuples (or even more generally)? stephenwlin@gmail.com - 2013-02-14 14:01 -0800
Re: Suggested feature: slice syntax within tuples (or even more generally)? stephenwlin@gmail.com - 2013-02-14 14:01 -0800
Re: Suggested feature: slice syntax within tuples (or even more generally)? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2013-02-14 17:46 -0800
Re: Suggested feature: slice syntax within tuples (or even more generally)? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2013-02-14 17:46 -0800
Re: Suggested feature: slice syntax within tuples (or even more generally)? stephenwlin@gmail.com - 2013-02-13 22:06 -0800
Re: Suggested feature: slice syntax within tuples (or even more generally)? Duncan Booth <duncan.booth@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-14 12:25 +0000
Re: Suggested feature: slice syntax within tuples (or even more generally)? stephenwlin@gmail.com - 2013-02-14 07:56 -0800
Re: Suggested feature: slice syntax within tuples (or even more generally)? Andrew Robinson <andrew3@r3dsolutions.com> - 2013-02-25 01:10 +0000
Re: Suggested feature: slice syntax within tuples (or even more generally)? Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-02-25 03:28 -0700
Re: Suggested feature: slice syntax within tuples (or even more generally)? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-02-25 06:23 -0500
Re: Suggested feature: slice syntax within tuples (or even more generally)? Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-02-25 09:54 -0700
Re: Suggested feature: slice syntax within tuples (or even more generally)? Andrew Robinson <andrew3@r3dsolutions.com> - 2013-02-25 09:47 +0000
Re: Suggested feature: slice syntax within tuples (or even more generally)? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2013-02-26 07:38 +0000
csiph-web