Does the PEP currently propose to *allow* that horrible example? I thought Tim Peters successfully pleaded to *only* allow a single "NAME := <expr>". You don't have to implement this restriction -- we know it's possible to implement, and if specifying this alone were to pull enough people from -1 to +0 there's a lot of hope! On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 6:04 AM, David Mertz <mertz@gnosis.cx> wrote:
It's horrors like this:
g(items[idx] := idx := f())
That make me maybe +0 if the PEP only allowed simple name targets, but decisively -1 for any assignment target in the current PEP.
But that's my point: you shouldn't need to write that. Can anyone give me a situation where that kind of construct is actually useful? Much more common would be to use := inside the square brackets, which makes the whole thing a lot more sane.
You can ALWAYS write stupid code. Nobody can or will stop you.
ChrisA _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ guido%40python.org
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)