Does the PEP currently propose to *allow* that horrible example? I thought Tim Peters successfully pleaded to *only* allow a single "NAME := <expr>". You don't have to implement this restriction -- we know it's possible to implement, and if specifying this alone were to pull enough people from -1 to +0 there's a lot of hope!
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 6:04 AM, David Mertz <me...@gnosis.cx> wrote: > > It's horrors like this: > > > > g(items[idx] := idx := f()) > > > > That make me maybe +0 if the PEP only allowed simple name targets, but > > decisively -1 for any assignment target in the current PEP. > > But that's my point: you shouldn't need to write that. Can anyone give > me a situation where that kind of construct is actually useful? Much > more common would be to use := inside the square brackets, which makes > the whole thing a lot more sane. > > You can ALWAYS write stupid code. Nobody can or will stop you. > > ChrisA > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ > guido%40python.org > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
