A counter-proposal to __future__ in PEP 236

[Joshua Marshall]

Tim Peters <tim.one at home.com> wrote:
> [Joshua Marshall]
>> ...
>> Note that it doesn't need to be implemented this way.  Currently,
>>
>>   directive foo
>>
>> is a syntax error.  Meaning can be assigned to this syntax without
>> breaking any existing code--it is unambiguous.

> You should study Python's parser before getting too optimistic about that
> <wink>.

So anybody care to post an example of how this can be ambiguous (in
context) so I don't need to go study Python's parser...?