Changes by Ezio Melotti ezio.melo...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +ezio.melotti
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue18788
___
___
Antoine Pitrou added the comment:
In addition to being a pain at the interactive prompt
Just type prTAB and the print( call will be auto-completed.
(with TAB-completion being enabled by default in 3.4 ;-))
the change of print from a statement to a function has also been noted
as one of the
Peter Otten added the comment:
a bare expression is not call
Wouldn't that silently swallow a lot of bare
print
statements?
--
nosy: +peter.otten
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue18788
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
Ambiguous cases (such as expr * expr and expr ** expr) obey the rule that
implicit calls are very *low* precedence, so you have to use parens to force
the call interpretation.
Does a + b c mean (a + b)(c)? Does a + b (c) mean (a + b)((c))?
What does a
Nick Coghlan added the comment:
As Serhiy's examples show, the ambiguities this introduces get confusing fast.
A more constrained version that (for example) permitted only name references
for the callable could resolve that, but it's probably still a bad idea. Still,
interesting to know it is
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
I like a parens-less call syntax, but it is unpythonic and even anti-pythonic.
It can be good in some other language (like Forth or Tcl, may be Perl or Ruby)
but not in Python. It requires some other coordinated features (a syntax to
obtaining a reference
Ramchandra Apte added the comment:
I do not see much use of of implicit call syntax, a good editor will
autocomplete the brackets.
--
nosy: +Ramchandra Apte
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue18788
Guido van Rossum added the comment:
Well aren't there other languages (Ruby, Coffeescript) that have the same
syntax? How do they do it? (Haskell does it too, but I don't think we can
learn from it -- but in Ruby and IIRC Coffeescsript it is syntactic sugar for a
regular call.)
Heck, even
Alex Gaynor added the comment:
I suppose I'm one of the more qualified people to comment on how Ruby does it:
a mess of hacks in the lexer/parser. Ruby's case is complicated by the fact
that a bare `foo` can either be a local variable or a method call on self.
Consider the case `a +b`, should
Nick Coghlan added the comment:
To clarify how my patch works: leaving out the parentheses is permitted
*only* when the call is a statement unto itself. That's how it avoids
conflicting with any existing syntax like a *b or a **b: the parser
consumes those as part of the initial expression, so
Changes by Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us:
--
nosy: +ethan.furman
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue18788
___
___
Python-bugs-list
New submission from Nick Coghlan:
After watching one of the presenters at PyTexas struggle painfully with the
fact print value doesn't work in Python 3, I decided I had to at least *try*
to see if a general implicit call syntax was feasible within the constraints
of the CPython parser.
The
12 matches
Mail list logo
