On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
Carl Meyer <carl@oddbird.net> writes:
On 09/28/2015 01:53 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Carl Meyer:
I'm having trouble coming up with a parallel example where the existing short-circuit operators break "extractibility" of a sub-expression like that.
Why is that an interesting property?
Because breaking up an overly-complex expression into smaller expressions by means of extracting sub-expressions into temporary variables is a common programming task
+1, this is a hugely important tool in the mental toolkit. Making that more difficult is a high cost, thank you for expressing it so explicitly.
it's usually one that can be handled pretty mechanically according to precedence rules, without having to consider that some operators might have action-at-a-distance beyond their precedence.
I don't know, but I think you shouldn't worry about this.
I think it's kind of odd, but if nobody else is worried about it, I won't worry about it either :-)
I share the concerns Carl is expressing; action-at-a-distance is something I'm glad Python doesn't have much of, and I would be loath to see that increase.
Really? You would consider a syntactic feature whose scope is limited to things to its immediate right with the most tightly binding pseudo-operators "action-at-a-distance"? The rhetoric around this issue is beginning to sound ridiculous. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)