On 25/04/17 02:15, Chris Angelico wrote:
Bikeshedding: Your example looks a lot more like tuple assignment than multiple assignment.
Well, originally, I thought it was just the spelling-the-same-name-twice thing that irritated me and I was just going to suggest a single assignment version like: self .= foo self .= bar Then I thought that this is similar to importing (referencing an object from one namespace in another under the same name). In that scenario, instead of: from other import foo from other import bar we have: from other import foo, bar That's where the comma-separated idea came from, and I understand it looks like a tuple (which is why I explicitly mentioned that) but it does in the import syntax too ;) The single argument version (though it doesn't help with vertical space) still reads better to me for the same reason that augmented assignment is clearer - there is no need to mentally parse that the same name is being used on both sides of the assignment because it's only spelled once.
self .= foo .= bar .= baz .= spam .= ham
Thanks for being the only person so far to understand that I don't necessarily want to bind ALL of the __init__ parameters to the object, just the ones I explicitly reference, but I'm not convinced by this suggestion. In chained assignment the thing on the RHS is bound to each name to the left of it and that is really not happening here.
The trouble is that this syntax is really only going to be used inside __init__.
Even if that was true, who ever writes one of those? :D E.