There are at least three existing ways to already do this.
(foo["bar"]
["baz"]
["eggs"]
["spam"]) = 1
foo["bar"][
"baz"][
"eggs"][
"spam"] = 1
foo["bar"]\
["baz"]\
["eggs"]\
["spam"] = 1
I think the first one is the clear winner.
The difficulty with your proposal is that without the indent, it is
ambiguous:
foo["bar"]
["baz"]
["eggs"]
["spam"] = value
The first three lines of that are legal code. Pointless, but legal. It
is only when we get to the last line, the assignment, that it fails, and
only because the unpacking assignment target is a literal. If it were a
name, it could succeed:
[spam] = value # succeeds with value = (1,) for example
unpacks `value` and assigns the results to the list of names `[spam]`.
So this syntax will *require* indentation to avoid the ambiguity. But
that breaks the rule that indentation is only required for a block
following a keyword such as class, def, for, if etc.
Okay, so perhaps it is not quite a hard rule, more of a convention or
expectation, but *requiring* such indentation would still violate
it. So given that there are already at least three adequate solutions to
the problem, I don't see the need to complicate the language to support
another.
--
Steve
_______________________________________________
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/CASG7V5AN7BJCOXXCEYWD26LQOMFD3UJ/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
