175 lines
6.2 KiB
Plaintext
175 lines
6.2 KiB
Plaintext
PEP: 244
|
||
Title: The `directive' statement
|
||
Version: $Revision$
|
||
Last-Modified: $Date$
|
||
Author: martin@v.loewis.de (Martin von Löwis)
|
||
Status: Rejected
|
||
Type: Standards Track
|
||
Created: 20-Mar-2001
|
||
Python-Version: 2.1
|
||
Post-History:
|
||
|
||
|
||
Motivation
|
||
|
||
From time to time, Python makes an incompatible change to the
|
||
advertised semantics of core language constructs, or changes their
|
||
accidental (implementation-dependent) behavior in some way. While
|
||
this is never done capriciously, and is always done with the aim
|
||
of improving the language over the long term, over the short term
|
||
it's contentious and disrupting.
|
||
|
||
PEP 1, Guidelines for Language Evolution[1] suggests ways to ease
|
||
the pain, and this PEP introduces some machinery in support of
|
||
that.
|
||
|
||
PEP 2, Statically Nested Scopes[2] is the first application, and
|
||
will be used as an example here.
|
||
|
||
When a new, potentially incompatible language feature is added,
|
||
some modules and libraries may chose to use it, while others may
|
||
not. This specification introduces a syntax where a module author
|
||
can denote whether a certain language feature is used in the
|
||
module or not.
|
||
|
||
In discussion of this PEP, readers commented that there are two
|
||
kinds of "settable" language features:
|
||
|
||
- those that are designed to eventually become the only option, at
|
||
which time specifying use of them is not necessary anymore. The
|
||
features for which the syntax of the "Back to the __future__"
|
||
PEP 236, Back to the __future__[3] was proposed fall into this
|
||
category. This PEP supports declaring such features, and
|
||
supports phasing out the "old" meaning of constructs whose
|
||
semantics has changed under the new feature. However, it
|
||
defines no policy as to what features must be phased out
|
||
eventually.
|
||
|
||
- those which are designed to stay optional forever, e.g. if they
|
||
change some default setting in the interpreter. An example for
|
||
such settings might be the request to always emit line-number
|
||
instructions for a certain module; no specific flags of that
|
||
kind are proposed in this specification.
|
||
|
||
Since a primary goal of this PEP is to support new language
|
||
constructs without immediately breaking old libraries, special
|
||
care was taken not to break old libraries by introducing the new
|
||
syntax.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Syntax
|
||
|
||
A directive_statement is a statement of the form
|
||
|
||
directive_statement: 'directive' NAME [atom] [';'] NEWLINE
|
||
|
||
The name in the directive indicates the kind of the directive; it
|
||
defines whether the optional atom can be present, and whether
|
||
there are further syntactical or semantical restrictions to the
|
||
atom. In addition, depending on the name of the directive,
|
||
certain additional syntactical or semantical restrictions may be
|
||
placed on the directive (e.g. placement of the directive in the
|
||
module may be restricted to the top of the module).
|
||
|
||
In the directive_statement, 'directive' is a new
|
||
keyword. According to [1], this keyword is initially considered as
|
||
a keyword only when used in a directive statement, see "Backwards
|
||
Compatibility" below.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Semantics
|
||
|
||
A directive statement instructs the Python interpreter to process
|
||
a source file in a different way; the specific details of that
|
||
processing depend on the directive name. The optional atom is
|
||
typically interpreted when the source code is processed; details
|
||
of that interpretation depend on the directive.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Specific Directives: transitional
|
||
|
||
If a syntactical or semantical change is added to Python which is
|
||
incompatible, [1] mandates a transitional evolution of the
|
||
language, where the new feature is initially available alongside
|
||
with the old one. Such a transition is possible by means of the
|
||
transitional directive.
|
||
|
||
In a transitional directive, the NAME is 'transitional'. The atom
|
||
MUST be present, and it MUST be a NAME. The possible values for
|
||
that name are defined when the language change is defined. One
|
||
example for such a directive is
|
||
|
||
directive transitional nested_scopes
|
||
|
||
The transitional directive MUST occur at before any other
|
||
statement in a module, except for the documentation string
|
||
(i.e. it may appear as the second statement of a module only if
|
||
the first statement is a STRING+).
|
||
|
||
|
||
Backwards Compatibility
|
||
|
||
Introducing 'directive' as a new keyword might cause
|
||
incompatibilities with existing code. Following the guideline in
|
||
[1], in the initial implementation of this specification,
|
||
directive is a new keyword only if it was used in a valid
|
||
directive_statement (i.e. if it appeared as the first non-string
|
||
token in a module).
|
||
|
||
|
||
Unresolved Problems: directive as the first identifier
|
||
|
||
Using directive in a module as
|
||
|
||
directive = 1
|
||
|
||
(i.e. the name directive appears as the first thing in a module)
|
||
will treat it as keyword, not as identifier. It would be possible
|
||
to classify it as a NAME with an additional look-ahead token, but
|
||
such look-ahead is not available in the Python tokenizer.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Questions and Answers
|
||
|
||
Q: It looks like this PEP was written to allow definition of source
|
||
code character sets. Is that true?
|
||
|
||
A: No. Even though the directive facility can be extended to
|
||
allow source code encodings, no specific directive is proposed.
|
||
|
||
Q: Then why was this PEP written at all?
|
||
|
||
A: It acts as a counter-proposal to [3], which proposes to
|
||
overload the import statement with a new meaning. This PEP
|
||
allows to solve the problem in a more general way.
|
||
|
||
Q: But isn't mixing source encodings and language changes like
|
||
mixing apples and oranges?
|
||
|
||
A: Perhaps. To address the difference, the predefined
|
||
"transitional" directive has been defined.
|
||
|
||
|
||
References and Footnotes
|
||
|
||
[1] PEP 5, Guidelines for Language Evolution, Prescod
|
||
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0005/
|
||
|
||
[2] PEP 227, Statically Nested Scopes, Hylton
|
||
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0227/
|
||
|
||
[3] PEP 236, Back to the __future__, Peters
|
||
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0236/
|
||
|
||
|
||
Copyright
|
||
|
||
This document has been placed in the public domain.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Local Variables:
|
||
mode: indented-text
|
||
indent-tabs-mode: nil
|
||
End:
|