René's URL Explorer Experiment

{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DiscussionForumPosting","headline":"`inst` defintion and its optional `stack_effect`","articleBody":"The DSL specification syntax definition of the `inst` shows that the `stack_effect` is optional, \n**including its parentheses**:\n```\ndefinition:\n    \"inst\" \"(\" NAME [\",\" stack_effect] \")\" \"{\" C-code \"}\"\n...\nstack_effect:\n    \"(\" [inputs] \"--\" [outputs] \")\"\n```\n\nBut if we defined a new instruction, let's say, `MY_INSTRUCTION` as:\n```C\ninst(MY_INSTRUCTION) {\n  /* implementation */\n}\n```\nWe will get the following error:\n```\nSyntaxError: Extra stuff at the end of ./Python/bytecodes.c\n```\nHowever, if we defined `MY_INSTRUCTION` with an **empty** `stack-effect`, it will work!\n```C\ninst(MY_INSTRUCTION, ( -- )) {\n  /* implementation */\n}\n```\n\n\u003c!-- gh-linked-prs --\u003e\n### Linked PRs\n* gh-133708\n* gh-133729\n* gh-133730\n\u003c!-- /gh-linked-prs --\u003e\n","author":{"url":"https://github.com/nybblista","@type":"Person","name":"nybblista"},"datePublished":"2025-05-05T00:01:50.000Z","interactionStatistic":{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":"https://schema.org/CommentAction","userInteractionCount":6},"url":"https://github.com/133412/cpython/issues/133412"}