On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 00:22:33 +1000 Nick Coghlan email@example.com wrote:
On 22 June 2018 at 02:26, Antoine Pitrou firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Indeed. But, for a syntax addition such as PEP 572, I think it would be a good idea to ask their opinion to teaching/education specialists.
As far as I'm concerned, if teachers and/or education specialists were to say PEP 572 is not a problem, my position would shift from negative towards neutral.
I asked a handful of folks at the Education Summit the next day about it:
- for the basic notion of allowing expression level name binding using
the "NAME := EXPR" notation, the reactions ranged from mildly negative (I read it as only a "-0" rather than a "-1") to outright positive.
Thank you. Personally, I'd like to see feedback from educators/teachers after they take the time to read the PEP and take some time to think about its consequences.
My main concern is we're introducing a second different way of doing something which is really fundamental.
- for the reactions to my description of the currently proposed parent
local scoping behaviour in comprehensions, I'd use the word "horrified", and feel I wasn't overstating the response :) [...]
Hmm... I don't think conflating the assignment expression proposal with comprehension semantics issues is helping the discussion.