homepage

Can this be fixed? As far as I can remember (ver. 1.5.6),
it has always existed. Python does not crash, I find it
inelegant. Should it not be a SyntaxError?
Side effect. Searching for keywords, (eg. with re, "\b") may
practically always implies to handle this case separately.
Python all versions.
>>> 1and 0
0
>>> 1or 0
1
>>> 9if True else 22
9
>>> 0.1234if True else 22
0.1234
>>> [999for i in range(3)]
[999, 999, 999]

> Can this be fixed?
More or less.
The following patch does the trick, but is not really elegant:
"""
--- a/Parser/tokenizer.c 2011年06月01日 02:39:38.000000000 +0000
+++ b/Parser/tokenizer.c 2011年12月16日 08:48:45.000000000 +0000
@@ -1574,6 +1576,10 @@
 }
 }
 tok_backup(tok, c);
+ if (is_potential_identifier_start(c)) {
+ tok->done = E_TOKEN;
+ return ERRORTOKEN;
+ }
 *p_start = tok->start;
 *p_end = tok->cur;
 return NUMBER;
"""
"""
> python -c "1and 0"
 File "<string>", line 1
 1and 0
 ^
SyntaxError: invalid token
"""
Note that there are other - although less bothering - limitations:
"""
> python -c "1 and@ 2"
 File "<string>", line 1
 1 and@ 2
 ^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
"""
This should be catched by the lexer, not the parser (i.e. it should raise an "Invalid token" error).
That's a limitation of the ad-hoc scanner.

> Can this be fixed?
Not without breaking backwards compatibility, I would think.

I think it's fairly harmless. Perhaps Python 4.

The proposal is to change the definition of numbers literals from X to one that is context-sensitive: X followed by whitespace or a syntactic symbol but not anything else, in particular, not by an identifier_start character. I am +-0 at the moment.
> 1 and@ 2
I presume this is parsed as 1 and @ 2, which is a syntax error.

I don't see a good reason to change this.

I have done a little bit hd/files archeology and
found some of my comments.
Pointing on number litterals is probably wrong. The fact
is that, this happens with practically any expression. And 
strangely, not all keywords (constructs?) are affected.
>>> 999if 1 else 888
999
>>> """"""if 1 else 888
>>> {1: 'a'}if 1 else 888
{1: 'a'}
>>> 999 if 'a' else 888
999
>>> 999if 'a' else 888
999
>>> 999if 'a'else 888
999
>>> 999if 888else 888
 File "<eta last command>", line 1
 999if 888else 888
 ^
SyntaxError: invalid token
>>> 999if """"""else 888
888
To summarize: The Python syntax does not require an "isolated"
keyword, something like \b<keyword>\b.

>>> 999if 888else 888
 File "<eta last command>", line 1
 999if 888else 888
 ^
SyntaxError: invalid token
This might be because 888e5 is a valid expression, so the 'e' is parsed as part of the number rather than a separate token.
>>> 999 if 888.else 888
 File "<stdin>", line 1
 999 if 888.else 888
 ^
SyntaxError: invalid token
>>> 999 if 888jelse 888
999

-1 I'm with Mark, Georg, and Benjamin on this one.

> Ezio Melotti
Good catch.
I'm not complaining. I just find funny to see the number of editors
not "colorizing" this kind of Python valid expressions. (IDLE included)
For me, subject close.

I'll close this then.