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_ decorators and then has a separate definition for decorated funcdefs and classdefs called 'decorated' that is another compound_stmt (along with funcdef and classdef). (For Grammar, I'm looking at: http://docs.python.org/dev/3.0/reference/grammar.html). The Language Reference defines both funcdef and classdef _with_ optional decorators, so the 'decorated' alternative for compound_stmt is no longer required and should be deleted. The following links should take you straight to the funcdef and classdef definitions in the Language Reference: http://docs.python.org/dev/3.0/reference/compound_stmts.html#grammar-token-funcdef http://docs.python.org/dev/3.0/reference/compound_stmts.html#grammar-token-classdef Now, I just also noticed that the Language Reference actually has two definitions of funcdef. The second definition is 3 lines below the first one and fails to include either the optional decorators or the new ["->" expression] option after the argument list. Should I report this as another bug, or does this comment count. This second definition should be deleted. Also, the first definition of funcdef in the Language Reference has an extraneous '?' character after the ["->" expression] which should also be deleted. Should I report this as a separate bug too, or leave it, as well, to this comment? (Sorry for asking whether to report these too, I don't know how strict you guys are about keeping a record of everything). There are many other places where the grammar defined in the Language Reference is not a mirror copy of the Grammar (but is still an equivalent grammar). In fact, this seems to be the rule, rather than the exception. If you are unaware of this, you should examine the grammar definitions in the Language Reference and compare them to the Grammar yourself; or ask whoever is in charge of the Language Reference document. I don't know why this was done, I'm just trying to point out that the Language Reference document has some (minor) bugs in it that are very easily fixed. Benjamin Peterson wrote: > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <http://bugs.python.org/issue3913> > _______________________________________ > > _______________________________________ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bugs.python.org/issue3913> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com