On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 5:15 PM Greg Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > > On 1/11/21 4:59 am, David Mertz, Ph.D. wrote: > > b = b > > I don't want to live in a universe where this could be anything > other than a no-op in Python. >
Be careful what you say: there are some technicalities. If you mean that it won't change the behaviour of the object referred to by b, then I absolutely agree, but there are ways that this can be more than a no-op. Notably, it has very good meaning as a keyword argument (it means "pass b along, named b"), and as a function parameter (meaning "accept b, defaulting to b from the outer scope"); and even as a stand-alone statement, it isn't technically meaningless (it'll force b to be a local). But yes, I agree that I don't want this to force the evaluation of something, which continues to be called b. Even though that's technically possible already if you have a weird namespace, I wouldn't call that a good way to write code. ChrisA _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/HQI3ULA6ZAYEHU7JMKZYLLTAG2IFWIVI/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
