On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Yury Selivanov <yselivanov...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nathaniel, > > On 2015-04-29 7:58 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Yury Selivanov <yselivanov...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Nathaniel, >>> >>> On 2015-04-29 7:35 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >>>> >>>> What I do feel strongly about >>>> is that whatever syntax we end up with, there should be*some* >>>> accurate human-readable description of*what it is*. AFAICT the PEP >>>> currently doesn't have that. >>> >>> How to define human-readable description of how unary >>> minus operator works? >> >> Hah, good question :-). Of course we all learned how to parse >> arithmetic in school, so perhaps it's a bit cheating to refer to that >> knowledge. Except of course basically all our users *do* have that >> knowledge (or else are forced to figure it out anyway). So I would be >> happy with a description of "await" that just says "it's like unary >> minus but higher precedence". >> >> Even if we put aside our trained intuitions about arithmetic, I think >> it's correct to say that the way unary minus is parsed is: everything >> to the right of it that has a tighter precedence gets collected up and >> parsed as an expression, and then it takes that expression as its >> argument. Still pretty simple. > > > Well, await is defined exactly like that ;)
So you're saying that "await -fut" and "await await fut" are actually legal syntax after all, contra what the PEP says? Because "- -fut" is totally legal syntax, so if await and unary minus work the same... (Again I don't care about those examples in their own right, I just find it frustrating that I can't answer these questions without asking you each time.) -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- http://vorpus.org _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
