On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Larry Hastings <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 04/24/2015 09:45 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > Ah, I misread Tal's suggestion. Using unary + is an even neater approach. > > > Not exactly. The way I figure it, the best way to achieve this with unary > plus is to ast.parse it (as we currently do) and then modify the parse tree. > That works but it's kind of messy. > > My main objection to this notation is that that set objects don't support +. > The union operator for sets is |. > > I've prototyped a hack allowing > str(accept|={NoneType}) > I used the tokenize module to tokenize, modify, and untokenize the converter > invocation. Works fine. And since augmented assignment is (otherwise) > illegal in expressions, it's totally unambiguous. I think if we do it at all > it should be with that notation.
We're deep into bike-shedding territory at this point, but I prefer Nick's suggestion of using the Ellipses for this. It's the simplest and most obvious syntax suggested so far. - Tal _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com