On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > There is quite a bit of Python's lexical analysis that is specified in > places other than the formal notation. That does not mean it is undefined. > It is well defined in the lexer code and the documentation. You suggest that > a "rule probably should be added to the lexer to make this explicit." That > is not necessary. The rule is already there.
Be careful; Python is not an implementation-defined language. Python has no "lexer code" - CPython does, and is probably what you're thinking of. (There are other languages that *are* implementation-defined, meaning that it *is* correct to talk about features in that way. Python just isn't one of them.) Sometimes a rule needs to be clarified to mandate something that was previously left up to the implementation; however, if that's the case, the rule would not be added to the lexer, but to the documentation. ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list