On Friday, April 27, 2018, Tim Peters <email@example.com> wrote:
[Chris Angelico <firstname.lastname@example.org>]
> I don't understand why people bring up all these arguments that have
> absolutely nothing to do with the proposal at hand. None of this has
> in any way changed.
That's easy: any time there's a long thread to which Guido has
contributed at least twice, it will be seen as a Golden Opportunity to
re-litigate every decision that's ever been made ;-)
Some amount of that seems healthy to me (people are thinking about
"language design" from a larger view than the proposal du jour). In
this specific case, line-oriented coverage tools have missed
accounting for all possible code paths since day #1; e.g.,
x = f() or g()
You don't need to reply to messages so obviously irrelevant to the PEP
unless you want to. It's not like Guido will read them and go "oh! a
binding expression in a ternary conditional is a fundamentally new
potential problem for a line-oriented coverage tool! that's fatal"
I have shared with you the overlapping concerns about this feature proposal that I believe should be explained with DO and DON'T in the docs and/or the PEP and/or the style guide(s) for various organizations in the Pyrhon community.
This feature does require additions to the style-guide(s); which is why so many have expressed concern about such a simple thing.
If you want to write debuggable and coverage-testable code, do not use the assignment expression operator in ternary expressions or boolean-chained expressions.
The assignment expression operator is the only way to define variables with only comprehension scope.
Do not do this:
x = 2
if (x == 3) or (x := 3):
What do we call that mistake?
Python-Dev mailing list