PEP-308 a "simplicity-first" alternative

[Christian Tismer]

holger krekel wrote:
> Andrew Koenig wrote:
> 
>>holger> Inspired by "do the simplest thing that can possibly work" i
>>holger> now think that
>>
>>holger>         x and y else z
>>
>>holger> might just do it and avoid the need for a new construct.  
>>
>>I thought so too when I first saw it, but now I'm less sure.
>>For example, what is the meaning of
> 
> 
> Damn, you get to the point where i was too lazy to think it out :-)
> 
> 
>>        w and x and y else z
> 
> 
>         (w and x) and y else z
> 
> should be the meaning. 

Wrong.
           w and (x and y else z)

>>        w and x and y else z else a
> 
> 
> SyntaxError because it would be grouped as
> 
>          ((w and x) and y else z) else a

Wrong.
            (w and (x and y else z) else a)

>>        (x and y) else z
> 
> SyntaxError aka "else requires preceding 'x and y' part".

Yup.

> Or in Grammar speek:
> 
>     and_test: not_test ('and' not_test ['else' not_test])*

I don't have the grammar, yet.
But this one doesn't do what I mean.

-- 
Christian Tismer             :^)   <mailto:tismer at tismer.com>
Mission Impossible 5oftware  :     Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9a     :    *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14109 Berlin                 :     PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
work +49 30 89 09 53 34  home +49 30 802 86 56  pager +49 173 24 18 776
PGP 0x57F3BF04       9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619  305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04
      whom do you want to sponsor today?   http://www.stackless.com/