On 2013-06-25 12:48, Chris Angelico wrote:
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.
No, that's not what I am thinking of. I said that the rule is defined in both
code and the documentation. Mark did suggest adding the rule to the lexer (for
which he may have been thinking of just CPython, but you can take that up with
him), but of course it is already there. I did not suggest that its presence in
the lexer code (of any or all implementations) is sufficient, but the point is
moot because it is already both explicitly implemented (several times) and
clearly documented in the Python language reference.
--
Robert Kern
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
