Ian Kelly wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Steven D'Aprano > <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: >>> Without the parentheses, this is legal but (probably) useless; it >>> applies the unary + operator to the return value of those functions. >>> Putting the + at the end of the previous line at least prevents that, >>> since most unary operators bind to the operand on the right; >> >> Not so: >> >>>>> x = (42 + - >> ... 100) >>>>> >>>>> x >> -58 > > That is still binding to the operand on the "right" (i.e., the > sequentially later). And it still does not cause the problem that > Chris was talking about, since without the parentheses that would be a > syntax error. So I guess I'm not certain what exactly it is that > you're trying to demonstrate here.
Chris stated that putting the unary + at the end of the line prevents "that", that being applying the unary + operator to the value on the right. But that is not the case -- unary prefix operators in Python can be separated from their operands by whitespace, including newlines. (Python doesn't have any unary postfix operators.) -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
