# Dict display data = { key_a: local_a := 1, key_b: local_b := 2, key_c: local_c := 3, } Isn’t this a set display with local assignments and type annotations? :o) (I’m -1 on all of these ideas, btw. None help readability for me, and I read much more code than I write.) Top-posted from my Windows phone From: Nick Coghlan Sent: Sunday, April 8, 2018 6:27 To: Chris Angelico Cc: python-ideas Subject: Re: [Python-ideas] PEP 572: Statement-Local Name Bindings,take three! On 23 March 2018 at 20:01, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
Apologies for letting this languish; life has an annoying habit of getting in the way now and then.
Feedback from the previous rounds has been incorporated. From here, the most important concern and question is: Is there any other syntax or related proposal that ought to be mentioned here? If this proposal is rejected, it should be rejected with a full set of alternatives.
I was writing a new stdlib test case today, and thinking about how I might structure it differently in a PEP 572 world, and realised that a situation the next version of the PEP should discuss is this one: # Dict display data = { key_a: 1, key_b: 2, key_c: 3, } # Set display with local name bindings data = { local_a := 1, local_b := 2, local_c := 3, } # List display with local name bindings data = { local_a := 1, local_b := 2, local_c := 3, } # Dict display data = { key_a: local_a := 1, key_b: local_b := 2, key_c: local_c := 3, } # Dict display with local key name bindings data = { local_a := key_a: 1, local_b := key_b: 2, local_c := key_c: 3, } I don't think this is bad (although the interaction with dicts is a bit odd), and I don't think it counts as a rationale either, but I do think the fact that it becomes possible should be noted as an outcome arising from the "No sublocal scoping" semantics. Cheers, Nick. P.S. The specific test case is one where I want to test the three different ways of spelling "the current directory" in some sys.path manipulation code (the empty string, os.curdir, and os.getcwd()), and it occurred to me that a version of PEP 572 that omits the sublocal scoping concept will allow inline naming of parts of data structures as you define them. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/