Message306209
| Author |
skrah |
| Recipients |
benjamin.peterson, brett.cannon, cryvate, gvanrossum, ncoghlan, serhiy.storchaka, skrah, yselivanov |
| Date |
2017-11-14.13:43:30 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<20171114134320.GA14749@bytereef.org> |
| In-reply-to |
<1510666312.8.0.213398074469.issue32012@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 01:31:52PM +0000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> If limited to the original scope, this isn't a new special case, it's fixing a bug in the implementation of the existing special case (where it's ignoring the trailing comma when it shouldn't be).
This ignores the trailing comma:
f([1,2,3],)
And this:
f(x for x in [1,2,3],)
Seems logical to me.
Do you want to allow the 1,2 to be read as a tuple?
f(x for x in 1,2) |
|