On 25/04/17 02:15, Chris Angelico wrote:
Bikeshedding: Your example looks a lot more like tuple assignment than
multiple assignment.
Well, originally, I thought it was just the spelling-the-same-name-twice
thing that irritated me and I was just going to suggest a single
assignment version like:
self .= foo
self .= bar
Then I thought that this is similar to importing (referencing an object
from one namespace in another under the same name). In that scenario,
instead of:
from other import foo
from other import bar
we have:
from other import foo, bar
That's where the comma-separated idea came from, and I understand it
looks like a tuple (which is why I explicitly mentioned that) but it
does in the import syntax too ;)
The single argument version (though it doesn't help with vertical space)
still reads better to me for the same reason that augmented assignment
is clearer - there is no need to mentally parse that the same name is
being used on both sides of the assignment because it's only spelled once.
self .= foo .= bar .= baz .= spam .= ham
Thanks for being the only person so far to understand that I don't
necessarily want to bind ALL of the __init__ parameters to the object,
just the ones I explicitly reference, but I'm not convinced by this
suggestion. In chained assignment the thing on the RHS is bound to each
name to the left of it and that is really not happening here.
The trouble is that this syntax is really only going to be used inside
__init__.
Even if that was true, who ever writes one of those? :D
E.
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
