[Python-ideas] Inline assignments using "given" clauses

[Ed Kellett]

On 2018-05-10 16:10, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Please no, it's not that easy. I can easily generate a stream of +1s or -1s
> for any proposal. I'd need well-reasoned explanations and it would have to
> come from people who are willing to spend significant time writing it up
> eloquently. Nick has tried his best and failed to convince me. So the bar
> is high.
> 
> (Also note that most of the examples that have been brought up lately were
> meant to illustrate the behavior in esoteric corner cases while I was
> working out the fine details of the semantics. Users should use this
> feature sparingly and stay very far away of those corner cases -- but they
> have to be specified in order to be able to implement this thing.)

Poor prospects, then, but I'll do my best.

I think the most obvious argument (to me) favouring `given` over `:=` is
that it separates the two things it's doing:

    if m.group(2) given m = pattern.search(data):

as opposed to the more-nested := version:

    if (m := pattern.search(data)).group(2):

which, at least to me, is more complicated to think about because it
feels like it's making the .group() something to do with the assignment.

Put another way, I think your use of parentheses when discussing the
*pronunciation* of this thing is telling. It feels as though one needs
to start in the middle and then go in both directions at once, first
explaining the origin (or destination) of the operand in question in a
parenthesized offshoot, and then switching context and describing what
is done to it. It's midly mentally taxing. I'm sure we can all live with
that, but I don't want to: Python's exceptionally-readable syntax is one
of the bigger reasons I choose it.

There's a striking parallel in C, where the well-known idiom:

    while ((c = getchar()) != EOF) ...

has an obviously-nicer alternative:

    while (c = getchar(), c != EOF) ...

Most people I show this to agree that it's nicer, despite the fact that
it manages to repeat a variable name *and* use the comma operator. I
don't have proof, but I'd suggest that unwrapping that layer of context
for the reader imparts a significant benefit.

The C example also provides a convenient test: if you think the former
example is nicer, I can just give up now ;)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20180510/deb30630/attachment-0001.sig>