On 2023-05-24 08:51:19 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 08:48, Peter J. Holzer <hjp-pyt...@hjp.at> wrote: > > Yes, that probably wasn't the best example. I sort of deliberately > > avoided method chaining here to make my point that you don't have to > > invent a new variable name for every intermediate result, but of course > > that backfired because in this case you don't need a variable name at > > all. I should have used regular function calls ... > > > > In the context of a .= operator, though, that is *in itself* an > interesting data point: in order to find an example wherein the .= > operator would be plausible, you had to make the .= operator > unnecessary.
Another communication failure on my part, I'm afraid: I was going off on
a tangent about variable naming and didn't intend to show anything about
the usefulness (or lack thereof) of a .= operator.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Story must make more sense than reality.
|_|_) | |
| | | h...@hjp.at | -- Charles Stross, "Creative writing
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | challenge!"
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
