On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 6:59 AM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> > wrote: > > 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! > > I don't see much value in restricting the assignment target to names > only, but if that's what it takes, it can be restricted, at least > initially. All of this is an exercise in listening and compromise, not in solving puzzles. > As to chaining... well, since the entire construct (target > := expr) is an expression, it can be used on the right of :=, so short > of outright forbidding it, there's not a lot to be done. > It would be more work but it can definitely be done (perhaps by introducing a syntactic construct of intermediate precedence). People could write "a := (b := foo())" but that way they resolve the ambiguity. Although if we restrict targets to just names there's less concern about ambiguity. -- --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
