On Feb 19, 2008 6:15 PM, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Holden wrote:
> [...]
> > The one that surprised me was the legality of
> >
> > def eggs((a, )=c):
> > pass
> >
> > That just seems like unpacking-abuse to me.
> >
> Needless to say, a call that tries to *use* th
Okay, my conclusion is
def f((a)=5)
is wrong, and the code should be changed to report a better error
message. I'll file a bug against that.
and I'm going with Brett suggestion that
[x for x in 1,]
is not supported because it's almost certainly a programming error. I
think therefore the
Steve Holden wrote:
[...]
> The one that surprised me was the legality of
>
> def eggs((a, )=c):
> pass
>
> That just seems like unpacking-abuse to me.
>
Needless to say, a call that tries to *use* the default value fails
horribly, as the parameter form does require an iterable:
Andrew Dalke wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2008 1:38 PM, Andrew Dalke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> def spam((a) = c):
>> print a
>
> On Feb 20, 2008 12:29 AM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[..]
>> Are you asking why the decision was made to make the expression
>> illegal, or why the grammar is
On Feb 19, 2008 1:38 PM, Andrew Dalke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> def spam((a) = c):
> print a
On Feb 20, 2008 12:29 AM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The error might be odd, but I don't see why that should be allowed
> syntax. Having a parameter surrounded by a parentheses like tha
On Feb 19, 2008 1:38 PM, Andrew Dalke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm finishing up a PLY lexer and parser for the current CVS version of
> the Python grammar. As part of it I've been testing a lot of dark
> corners in the grammar definition and implementation. Python 2.5 has
> some small and rar
I'm finishing up a PLY lexer and parser for the current CVS version of
the Python grammar. As part of it I've been testing a lot of dark
corners in the grammar definition and implementation. Python 2.5 has
some small and rare problems which I'm pleased to note have been
pretty much fixed in Pytho
