[Python-ideas] Spelling of Assignment Expressions PEP 572 (was post #4)

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 03:32:04PM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:

> In any context where arbitrary Python expressions can be used, a **named
> expression** can appear. This can be parenthesized for clarity, and is of
> the form ``(target := expr)`` where ``expr`` is any valid Python expression,
> and ``target`` is any valid assignment target.

Have we really decided on spelling this as `target := expression`? You 
list this as a rejected spelling:


> 1. ``EXPR as NAME``, with or without parentheses::
> 
>        stuff = [[f(x) as y, x/y] for x in range(5)]

but I don't think the objections given should be fatal:

>    Omitting the parentheses in this form of the proposal introduces many
>    syntactic ambiguities.  Requiring them in all contexts leaves open the
>    option to make them optional in specific situations where the syntax is
>    unambiguous (cf generator expressions as sole parameters in function
>    calls), but there is no plausible way to make them optional everywhere.
> 
>    With the parentheses, this becomes a viable option, with its own tradeoffs
>    in syntactic ambiguity.  Since ``EXPR as NAME`` already has meaning in
>    ``except`` and ``with`` statements (with different semantics), this would
>    create unnecessary confusion or require special-casing.

The special casing you refer to would be to prohibit name binding 
expressions in "except" and "with" statements. You should explicitly say 
so in the PEP.

I don't think that prohibiting those two forms is a big loss. I think 
any form of 

    except (name := expression) as err:
        do_something(name)

is going to be contrived. Likewise for `with` statements.

I don't especially dislike := but I really think that putting the 
expression first is a BIG win for readability. If that requires parens 
to disambiguate it, so be it.

You also missed the "arrow assignment operator" from various languages, 
including R:

    expression -> name

(In an earlier post, I suggested R's other arrow operator, name <- expr, 
but of course that already evaluates as unary minus expr.)

I think that there should be more attention paid to the idea of putting 
the expression first, rather than the name.



-- 
Steve