n00b question on spacing

[Chris Angelico]

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2013-06-25 12:48, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> There is quite a bit of Python's lexical analysis that is specified in
>>> places other than the formal notation. That does not mean it is
>>> undefined.
>>> It is well defined in the lexer code and the documentation. You suggest
>>> that
>>> a "rule probably should be added to the lexer to make this explicit."
>>> That
>>> is not necessary. The rule is already there.
>>
>>
>> Be careful; Python is not an implementation-defined language. Python
>> has no "lexer code" - CPython does, and is probably what you're
>> thinking of.
>
>
> No, that's not what I am thinking of. I said that the rule is defined in
> both code and the documentation. Mark did suggest adding the rule to the
> lexer (for which he may have been thinking of just CPython, but you can take
> that up with him), but of course it is already there. I did not suggest that
> its presence in the lexer code (of any or all implementations) is
> sufficient, but the point is moot because it is already both explicitly
> implemented (several times) and clearly documented in the Python language
> reference.

Sure, fair enough. I've just been skimming this thread, lately, so
please don't take my post as implying that you're wrong-wrong-wrong...
it's just something that seemed to want clarifying :)

ChrisA