2018-05-12 11:36 GMT+03:00 Angus Hollands <goosey15@gmail.com>:

Concerning my previous email,

Yes, my mistake. I'd forgotten (ironically) that the whole point is that it's an expression itself.

So
> while (value:=get_next_pool_item()).in_use:
> print(value.refcount())
would be the appropriate analogue.

Consequently, my example is invalid. A better example would have been where one needs to access more than one attribute of the expression

while (node.x, node.y) > (5.0, 5.0) given node = get_neighbours(node):
pass

In addition, this form gives you all the advantages of tuple unpacking:

while (x, y) > (5.0, 5.0) given x, y = get_neighbours(node):
pass

There was some criticism about the length of the `given`, maybe it is possible to _repurpose_ `with` keyword:

while (x, y) > (5.0, 5.0) with x, y = get_neighbours(node):
pass

In this context, the with statement and with expression are clearly distinguishable both for the parser and for the person. But maybe many will find this as a bad style ... since the semantics are too different.

With kind regards,

-gdg