On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2013-06-25 12:48, Chris Angelico wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@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 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
