Author gvanrossum
Recipients benjamin.peterson, brett.cannon, cryvate, gvanrossum, ncoghlan, serhiy.storchaka
Date 2017-11-14.18:00:03
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1510682403.95.0.213398074469.issue32012@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
It's a (small) mistake that we didn't make the syntax for argument lists in decorators the same as argument lists everywhere else, and that should be fixed to allow exactly what's allowed in regular calls. (That syntax is weird because we don't want e.g. `@foo().bar` but we do want e.g. `@foo.bar()`.)

I am honestly not sure that we should change anything here, since the meaning is not actually ambiguous: the syntax for generator expressions doesn't allow e.g. `x for x in 1, 2, 3` -- you have to write `x for x in (1, 2, 3)`. (A regular for-loop *does* allow this, but there the context makes it unambiguous -- that's why genexprs are different.)

But I'm fine with changing it, as long as we do it consistently.
History
Date User Action Args
2017-11-14 18:00:03gvanrossumsetrecipients: + gvanrossum, brett.cannon, ncoghlan, benjamin.peterson, serhiy.storchaka, cryvate
2017-11-14 18:00:03gvanrossumsetmessageid: <1510682403.95.0.213398074469.issue32012@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2017-11-14 18:00:03gvanrossumlinkissue32012 messages
2017-11-14 18:00:03gvanrossumcreate