Eric Snow wrote:
I'd vote for this in-order usage:
given: a = 1 b = 2 def f(a=given.a, b=given.b): ...
You seem to be taking the view that hiding the names in an inner scope is the most important part of PEP 3150, but I've never seen it that way.
I like the in-order variant because it's exactly how you would do it now, without the cleanup after:
a = 1 b = 2 def f(a=a, b=b): ... del a, b
But the assumption that "in-order is better" is the very thing under dispute. The entire reason for the existence of PEP 3150 and/or 403 is that some people believe it's not always true.
Also, the in-order given statement is easy to following when reading code, while the post-order one is less so.
I suspect we may be misleading ourselves by looking at artificially meaningless examples. If meaningful names are chosen for the intermediate values, I think it can help readability to put the top level first and relegate the details to an indented block. gross_value = net_value + gst_amount given: gst_amount = net_value * (gst_rate / 100.0) I can't see how it hurts to put the subsidiary details after the big picture, any more than it hurts to write your main() function at the top and other things it calls after it. -- Greg