On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 2:14 PM, David Mertz <me...@gnosis.cx> wrote: > Yes, I have not read all the iterations of the PEP, and none of them > extremely closely. I had thought it "obvious" that ':=' should have a very > high operator precedence. But of course if it doesn't then expressions like > the one I proposed could mean something quite different.
Interesting. How high, exactly? https://docs.python.org/3/reference/expressions.html#operator-precedence (note: "higher precedence" doesn't mean higher on that table - the table's from lowest to highest) Currently, I've placed ':=' up with if-else expressions. That's extremely low precedence. I'm contemplating moving it to just higher than comparison operators (ie just below the bitwise operators), putting it below all the arithmetic operators. The highest precedence I would consider putting it is just below the unary operators; that would mean it binds more tightly than arithmetic operators, but you can still say "x := y" without having to parenthesize the latter. foo := a > b # does this capture 'a', or 'a > b'? bar := c + d # 'c' or 'c + d'? I'm open to argument here, but my thinking is that these should capture 'a' and 'c + d'. ChrisA _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Pythonemail@example.com https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/