I wrote a translator from the CFG used in the Grammar file into a form for PLY. I
found one problem with

varargslist: ((fpdef ['=' test] ',')*
('*' NAME [',' '**' NAME] | '**' NAME) |
fpdef ['=' test] (',' fpdef ['=' test])* [','])

This grammar definition is ambiguous until the presence/lack of a "*". PLY
complains:

state 469

(28) varargslist -> fpdef EQUAL test COMMA .
(32) varargslist_star -> fpdef EQUAL test COMMA .
(35) varargslist_star3 -> COMMA . fpdef
(36) varargslist_star3 -> COMMA . fpdef EQUAL test
(39) fpdef -> . NAME
(40) fpdef -> . LPAR fplist RPAR

! shift/reduce conflict for NAME resolved as shift.
! shift/reduce conflict for LPAR resolved as shift.

RPAR            reduce using rule 28 (varargslist -\> fpdef EQUAL test COMMA .)
COLON           reduce using rule 28 (varargslist -\> fpdef EQUAL test COMMA .)
STAR            reduce using rule 32 (varargslist_star -\> fpdef EQUAL test 

COMMA .)
DOUBLESTAR reduce using rule 32 (varargslist_star -> fpdef EQUAL test
COMMA .)
NAME shift and go to state 165
LPAR shift and go to state 163

! NAME [ reduce using rule 32 (varargslist_star -> fpdef EQUAL test
COMMA
.) ]
! LPAR [ reduce using rule 32 (varargslist_star -> fpdef EQUAL test
COMMA
.) ]

fpdef                          shift and go to state 515

My fix was to use this definition when I did the translation.

varargslist: ((fpdef ['=' test] (',' fpdef ['=' test])*
(',' '*' NAME [',' '**' NAME] | ',' '**' NAME | [','])) |
('*' NAME [',' '**' NAME]) |
('**' NAME))

So far I've not found a functional difference between these two definitions, and
the only change to ast.c is to update the comment based on this section.

By making this change it would be easier for the handful of people who write
parsers for Python based on a yacc-like look-ahead(1) parser to use that file more
directly.

I don't have any objection in principle, but I would like to see the
updated rules based on the 2.6 and 3.0 Grammar files (they should only
be minor variants of what you have already done for 2.5)

I've been working from the Grammar file from CVS for 2.6 ... I thought.
For example, I see "# except_clause: 'except' [test [('as' | ',')
test]]" which is a 2.6-ism.

"svn log" says it hasn't changed since 2007-05-19, when except/as was
added.

What did I miss?

Sorry, I misread slightly (or else just got confused as to which of the
3 Grammar files I was looking at on my local machine). What you've
posted already is indeed the relevant change for 2.6 - it's only 3.0
that is slightly different because it allows the definition of
keyword-only arguments (I believe that feature may also be on the list
of items that may be backported to 2.6).

+!. I had to do a very similar refactoring recently when trying to fix the parser module to understand keyword-only arguments and annotations.

Taking keyword-only arguments into account, I think the replacement needs to be:

varargslist: (vfpdef ['=' test] (',' vfpdef ['=' test])* [','
['*' [vfpdef] (',' vfpdef ['=' test])* [',' '**' vfpdef] | '**' vfpdef]]
| '*' [vfpdef] (',' vfpdef ['=' test])* [',' '**' vfpdef] | '**' vfpdef)

and the analogous replacement needs to be made in the production for 'typedargslist', too.

BTW, I'm a bit surprised that the grammar doesn't allow for trailing commas after keyword-only arguments: that is,

def f(a, b,): ...     is fine, but
def f(*, a, b,): ...  is a SyntaxError

Here's a patch.

I'm assuming that this doesn't violate the moratorium, since it's not so much a change to the grammar itself as a modification to the way that it's expressed.

BTW, I'm a bit surprised that the grammar doesn't allow for trailing commas after keyword-only arguments:  that is,

def f(a, b,): ...     is fine, but
def f(*, a, b,): ...  is a SyntaxError

That seems more like an oversight than a deliberate restriction. Does
your patch eliminate the discrepancy?

(And agreed the moratorium doesn't apply).

No, "def f(, a,): ..." is still a SyntaxError with the patch. I'd think that allowing that extra comma *would be a violation of the moratorium, though maybe it's debatable. Perhaps worth bringing up on python-dev?

No,  "def f(, a,): ..." is still a SyntaxError with the patch.  I'd think that allowing that extra comma *would be a violation of the moratorium, though maybe it's debatable.  Perhaps worth bringing up on python-dev?

Good point - I just wouldn't worry about it in that case.

Good point - I just wouldn't worry about it in that case.

Ah, now I have to apologise: after some discussion on #python-dev IRC, I'm afraid I've (perhaps foolishly) rejected this advice. :) See python-dev discussion starting at

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-July/101636.html

I'll hold off on the modification in this issue until that discussion resolves.

Applied in r82837. I'll open a separate issue for the trailing commas.