Some syntactic sugar proposals

[Mel]

Christopher wrote:

>> ? Of course we can write it as
>> t = foo() if pred(foo()) else default_value
>> but here we have 2 foo() calls instead of one. Why can't we write just
>> something like this:
>> t = foo() if pred(it) else default_value
>> where "it" means "foo() value"?
> 
> i don't like magic names. what about:
> 
> t = foo() as v if pred(v) else default_value

!!  so: assignment inside an expression.

	Mel.