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)