On 2007 Feb 5, at 6:13 AM, Ulf Norell wrote:
How about instead writing
( expr
, expr
, expr
, expr
, expr
)
The only extra work is when inserting an element at the beginning,
but you have the same problem in your example.
This a coding style issue. My point was that the syntax should not
On 2/5/07, Ulf Norell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 3, 2007, at 6:35 AM, Douglas Philips wrote:
Well, if we're going to bring personal points of view in, it highly
pisses me off that in a construct such as:
( expr ,
expr ,
expr ,
expr ,
expr ,
)
I have to be vigilant to
On Feb 3, 2007, at 6:35 AM, Douglas Philips wrote:
Well, if we're going to bring personal points of view in, it highly
pisses me off that in a construct such as:
( expr ,
expr ,
expr ,
expr ,
expr ,
)
I have to be vigilant to remove that trailing comma when it is in
_no way_
On 2007 Feb 3, at 2:55 AM, Brian Hulley indited:
Of course, but when I said error I meant error with respect to
the intentions of the programmer not syntax error detected by the
compiler. The problem with your proposal is that if optional
trailing commas were allowed, if *I* wrote:
Douglas Philips wrote:
On 2007 Feb 3, at 2:55 AM, Brian Hulley indited:
I know, I find the need to manually delete and insert commas
extremely tedious as well. This is why I proposed:
...
I like that. (I haven't done enough analysis on the layout part of
the grammar to personally make sure it
On 2/3/07, Brian Hulley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, but when I said error I meant error with respect to the
intentions of the programmer not syntax error detected by the compiler.
The problem with your proposal is that if optional trailing commas were
allowed, if *I* wrote:
(1,2,)
Douglas Philips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would be the proper way to propose that:
| ( exp1 , ... , expk ) (tuple, k=2)
| [ exp1 , ... , expk ] (list, k=1)
be amended to:
| ( exp1 , ... , expk [ , ] ) (tuple, k=2)
| [ exp1 , ... , expk [
Douglas Philips wrote:
What would be the proper way to propose that:
( exp1 , ... , expk ) (tuple, k=2)
[ exp1 , ... , expk ] (list, k=1)
be amended to:
( exp1 , ... , expk [ , ] ) (tuple, k=2)
[ exp1 , ... , expk [ , ] ] (list, k=1)
I think a problem with the above proposal is that by
On 2 Feb, 2007, at 16:55 , Malcolm Wallace wrote:
Douglas Philips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would be the proper way to propose that:
| ( exp1 , ... , expk ) (tuple, k=2)
| [ exp1 , ... , expk ] (list, k=1)
be amended to:
| ( exp1 , ... , expk [ ,
On 2007 Feb 2, at 11:32 AM, Brian Hulley wrote:
Douglas Philips wrote:
What would be the proper way to propose that:
( exp1 , ... , expk ) (tuple, k=2)
[ exp1 , ... , expk ] (list, k=1)
be amended to:
( exp1 , ... , expk [ , ] ) (tuple, k=2)
[ exp1 , ... , expk [ , ] ] (list, k=1)
I think
On 2/2/07, Douglas Philips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I assert that the trailing comma is a feature, not a programmer
forgetting the last element, and that this
is already explicitly allowed, as per the syntax fragments already
quoted, repeated here for convenience:
-- from:
On 2007 Feb 2, at 12:13 PM, Kirsten Chevalier inquired:
On 2/2/07, Douglas Philips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I assert that the trailing comma is a feature, not a programmer
forgetting the last element, and that this
is already explicitly allowed, as per the syntax fragments already
quoted,
On 2/2/07, Douglas Philips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm...stated another way:
I am proposing that the list and tuple syntax change to be consistent
with the import and export syntax.
The argument that a trailing comma means the programmer forgot the
last item in a list / tuple is
inconsistent
On 2/2/07, Kirsten Chevalier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the other hand, with constant lists and tuples, you're probably not
going to frequently edit the same constant list value. Am I missing
something?
Sometimes people maintain static configuration items and the like in lists.
I've
Hi
The argument that a trailing comma means the programmer forgot the
last item in a list / tuple is
inconsistent with the deliberately explicit permissiveness of a
trailing comma in the import / export lists.
In the import / export lists such a trailing comma does not mean
programmer forgot
On 2007 Feb 2, at 1:03 PM, Neil Mitchell indited:
The argument that a trailing comma means the programmer forgot the
last item in a list / tuple is
inconsistent with the deliberately explicit permissiveness of a
trailing comma in the import / export lists.
In the import / export lists such a
On 2/2/07, Douglas Philips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007 Feb 2, at 1:03 PM, Neil Mitchell indited:
An import list is not a value, you can't examine whats in the list,
you can't enumerate it etc. As such, it doesn't really matter how many
elements are in there, the important thing is what
Douglas Philips wrote:
On 2007 Feb 2, at 1:03 PM, Neil Mitchell indited:
Personally I'd make the rule that trailing commas are never allowed,
anywhere, but I do see an argument for adding them to import lists.
You just highlighted the inconsistency:
You refer to import lists... you appear to
On 2007 Feb 2, at 11:25 PM, Brian Hulley indited:
Apart from the extra possibility for errors (yes I understood that
you'd define it to not be an error but this doesn't change the fact
that for people who always wrote their tuples using the normal
mathematical convention not using an
Douglas Philips wrote:
On 2007 Feb 2, at 11:25 PM, Brian Hulley indited:
Apart from the extra possibility for errors (yes I understood that
you'd define it to not be an error but this doesn't change the fact
that for people who always wrote their tuples using the normal
mathematical convention
20 matches
Mail list logo
