Calvin Spealman wrote:e
attribute access (foo.bar) binds more tightly than subscripting (foo[bar]).
no, they have the same binding power; here's the relevant part of the
grammar:
trailer: '(' [arglist] ')' | '[' subscriptlist ']' | '.' NAME
note however that "." only binds to a name, not a full expression (as
Carl noted).
the summary at http://docs.python.org/ref/summary.html is broken; the
source code for that page looks like this:
...
\hline
\lineii{\code{+}, \code{-}}{Addition and subtraction}
\hline
\lineii{\code{*}, \code{/}, \code{\%}}
{Multiplication, division, remainder}
\hline
\lineii{\code{+\var{x}}, \code{-\var{x}}} {Positive, negative}
\lineii{\code{\~\var{x}}} {Bitwise not}
\hline
\lineii{\code{**}} {Exponentiation}
\hline
\lineii{\code{\var{x}.\var{attribute}}} {Attribute reference}
\lineii{\code{\var{x}[\var{index}]}} {Subscription}
\lineii{\code{\var{x}[\var{index}:\var{index}]}} {Slicing}
\lineii{\code{\var{f}(\var{arguments}...)}} {Function call}
\hline
...
which indicates that the author intended "." and "[" to appear in the
same box, but got overruled by the Tex->HTML conversion tool.
(if someone has the bandwidth, please submit a documentation bug).
</F>
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
