On Jan 21, 2:50 pm, Scott David Daniels <scott.dani...@acm.org> wrote:
> Benjamin J. Racine wrote:
> > I think it would be a good step if you could make some sensible
> > interpretation of a typical statement without its parentheses.
>
> > f "abc" 123
> > -->
> > f( "abc", 123 )
>
> > It would be just the thing in a couple of situations... though it does
> > conflict with raw-string literals as stated: r"abc"... which if you left
> > open, would be susceptible to a local definition of r!. Maybe you could
> > put it after, like numeric literals: 123L, "abc"r, which is not bad.
>
> Surely this would require that
> f( "abc", 123 )
> -->
> f(("abc", 123))
> Or would you require that tuple-formation is "special"?
Natural language does have tuples, and there is some ambiguity some of
the time.
Go to the store and get bread.
-->
goto( store ); get( bread )
or:
get( store, bread )
-->
( Go to the store ), ( Get bread )
or:
( Go to ( the store, get bread ) )
Now for the good examples. ;)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
