[Python-Dev] PEP 492 vs. PEP 3152, new round

[Yury Selivanov]

Nathaniel,

On 2015-04-29 7:58 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Yury Selivanov <yselivanov.ml at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Nathaniel,
>>
>> On 2015-04-29 7:35 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>> What I do feel strongly about
>>> is that whatever syntax we end up with, there should be*some*
>>> accurate human-readable description of*what it is*. AFAICT the PEP
>>> currently doesn't have that.
>> How to define human-readable description of how unary
>> minus operator works?
> Hah, good question :-). Of course we all learned how to parse
> arithmetic in school, so perhaps it's a bit cheating to refer to that
> knowledge. Except of course basically all our users *do* have that
> knowledge (or else are forced to figure it out anyway). So I would be
> happy with a description of "await" that just says "it's like unary
> minus but higher precedence".
>
> Even if we put aside our trained intuitions about arithmetic, I think
> it's correct to say that the way unary minus is parsed is: everything
> to the right of it that has a tighter precedence gets collected up and
> parsed as an expression, and then it takes that expression as its
> argument. Still pretty simple.
>


Well, await is defined exactly like that ;)

Anyways, I'll follow Guido's suggestion to define
await in the PEP the same way we define other syntax
in python docs.

Yury