Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

[This is my one response today] On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:40 PM Terry Reedy wrote: > On 6/24/2018 7:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > I'd wager that the people who might be most horrified about it > > the (b) scoping rule change > > > would be people who feel strongly that the change to the >

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:30:24AM +1200, Greg Ewing wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: > >Greg seem to be +0 or better for (a) > > Actually, I'm closer to -1 on (a) as well. I don't like := as a > way of getting assignment in an expression. The only thing I would > give a non-negative rating is som

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On 26.06.2018 1:58, Greg Ewing wrote: Chris Angelico wrote: The wheel turns round and round, and the same spokes come up. Unless there's a repository of prior discussion no-one can be bothered to gather scraps from around the Net. Wikis solve this by all the discussion being in one place,

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On 26.06.2018 0:13, Steve Holden wrote: On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:37 PM, Terry Reedy > wrote: On 6/24/2018 7:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: I'd wager that the people who might be most horrified about it the (b) scoping rule change would be peo

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

Chris Angelico wrote: The wheel turns round and round, and the same spokes come up. A discussion long past, and a discussion yet to come. There are no beginnings or endings in the Wheel of Python... -- Greg ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@py

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

Terry Reedy wrote: How loop variables might be isolated without a nested scope: After a comprehension is parsed, so that names become strings, rename the loop variables to something otherwise illegal. This doesn't change the situation conceptually, though, since the question arises of why not

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote: "as" was suggested even before is became a keyword in `with'. ( if (re.match(regex,line) as m) is not None: ) That's not equivalent where/given, though, since it still has the asymmetry problem. -- Greg ___ Python-

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 5:14 PM Steve Holden wrote: > I'd like to ask: how many readers of ​ > > ​this email have ever deliberately taken advantage of the limited Python 3 > scope in comprehensions and generator expressions to use what would > otherwise be a conflicting local variable name?​ > I

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 2:16 PM Steve Holden wrote: > ​I'd like to ask: how many readers of ​ > > ​this email have ever deliberately taken advantage of the limited Python 3 > scope in comprehensions and generator expressions to use what would > otherwise be a conflicting local variable name?​ >

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:37 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: > On 6/24/2018 7:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > >> I'd wager that the people who might be most horrified about it >> > > the (b) scoping rule change > > would be people who feel strongly that the change to the >> comprehension scope rules in P

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On 6/25/2018 8:25 AM, Paul Moore wrote: On 25 June 2018 at 12:44, Nick Coghlan wrote: Unfortunately, I think the key rationale for (b) is that if you *don't* do something along those lines, then there's a different strange scoping discrepancy that arises between the non-comprehension forms of c

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:37 AM, Terry Reedy wrote: > How loop variables might be isolated without a nested scope: After a > comprehension is parsed, so that names become strings, rename the loop > variables to something otherwise illegal. For instance, i could become > '', just as lambda becomes

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On 6/24/2018 7:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: I'd wager that the people who might be most horrified about it the (b) scoping rule change would be people who feel strongly that the change to the comprehension scope rules in Python 3 is a big improvement, I might not be one of those 'most hor

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

[This is my one reply in this thread today. I am trying to limit the amount of time I spend to avoid another overheated escalation.] On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:44 AM Nick Coghlan wrote: > Right, the proposed blunt solution to "Should I use 'NAME = EXPR' or > 'NAME := EXPR'?" bothers me a bit, but

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

Not giving a vote, as I'm just a lurker, but: Le 25/06/2018 à 01:30, Greg Ewing a écrit : > > Actually, I'm closer to -1 on (a) as well. I don't like := as a > way of getting assignment in an expression. The only thing I would > give a non-negative rating is some form of "where" or "given". This

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On 25.06.2018 14:44, Nick Coghlan wrote: On 25 June 2018 at 02:24, Guido van Rossum wrote: A quick follow-up: PEP 572 currently has two ideas: (a) introduce := for inline assignment, (b) when := is used in a comprehension, set the scope for the target as if the assignment occurred outside any c

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On 25.06.2018 2:30, Greg Ewing wrote: Guido van Rossum wrote: Greg seem to be +0 or better for (a) Actually, I'm closer to -1 on (a) as well. I don't like := as a way of getting assignment in an expression. The only thing I would give a non-negative rating is some form of "where" or "given".

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On 25 June 2018 at 13:24, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 25 June 2018 at 22:17, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> FWIW, the most cryptic parent local scoping related exception I've >> been able to devise so far still exhibits PEP 572's desired "Omitting >> the comprehension scope entirely would give you the same

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On 25 June 2018 at 09:02, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 11:50 AM Steven D'Aprano > wrote: >> I will have more to say about the whole "comprehensions are their own >> scope" issue later. But I'd like to see Nick's proposed PEP, or at least >> a draft of it, before making any fi

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On 25 June 2018 at 22:17, Nick Coghlan wrote: > FWIW, the most cryptic parent local scoping related exception I've > been able to devise so far still exhibits PEP 572's desired "Omitting > the comprehension scope entirely would give you the same name lookup > behaviour" semantics: > > >>> def

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On 25 June 2018 at 13:17, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 25 June 2018 at 09:25, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> A "neutral" argument about (b) is that despite the "horrified" reactions >> that Nick saw, in practice it's going to confuse very few people (again, due >> to my point about Python's scope rules).

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On 25 June 2018 at 12:44, Nick Coghlan wrote: > Unfortunately, I think the key rationale for (b) is that if you > *don't* do something along those lines, then there's a different > strange scoping discrepancy that arises between the non-comprehension > forms of container displays and the comprehen

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On 25 June 2018 at 09:25, Guido van Rossum wrote: > A "neutral" argument about (b) is that despite the "horrified" reactions > that Nick saw, in practice it's going to confuse very few people (again, due > to my point about Python's scope rules). I'd wager that the people who might > be most horri

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On 25 June 2018 at 02:24, Guido van Rossum wrote: > A quick follow-up: PEP 572 currently has two ideas: (a) introduce := for > inline assignment, (b) when := is used in a comprehension, set the scope for > the target as if the assignment occurred outside any comprehensions. It > seems we have more

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

> > [Tim] >> > . First, the original example I gave would be approximately as well >> addressed by allowing to declare intended scopes in magically synthesized >> functions; like (say) >> >> p = None # to establish the intended scope of `p` >> while any( # split across lines just for readability

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 4:57 PM Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 2:41 PM Michael Selik wrote: > >> This thread started with a request for educator feedback, which I took to >> mean observations of student reactions. I've only had the chance to test >> the proposal on ~20 student

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 2:41 PM Michael Selik wrote: > This thread started with a request for educator feedback, which I took to > mean observations of student reactions. I've only had the chance to test > the proposal on ~20 students so far, but I'd like the chance to gather more > data for your

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

Greg Ewing writes: > Actually, I'm closer to -1 on (a) as well. I don't like := as a > way of getting assignment in an expression. The only thing I would > give a non-negative rating is some form of "where" or "given". +1 to this; ‘:=’ doesn't convey the meaning well. Python's syntax typically e

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

Steven D'Aprano wrote: You seem to be talking about an implementation which could change in the future. I'm talking semantics of the proposed language feature. The way I see it, it's not about implementation details, it's about having a mental model that's easy to reason about. "Comprehensions

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 2:10 PM Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:06 AM, Steven D'Aprano > wrote: > > > > Remember, the driving use-case which started this (ever-so-long) > > discussion was the ability to push data into a comprehension and then > > update it on each iteration, so

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

Guido van Rossum wrote: Greg seem to be +0 or better for (a) Actually, I'm closer to -1 on (a) as well. I don't like := as a way of getting assignment in an expression. The only thing I would give a non-negative rating is some form of "where" or "given". Brief summary of reasons for disliking

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 12:03 PM Tim Peters wrote: > [Guido] > :> However, [Tim] did post his motivation for (b) on python-ideas, IIRC a > bit > > before PyCon; and the main text of the PEP gives a strong motivation > > (https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0572/#scope-of-the-target). > Neverthele

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 11:50 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote: > [Guido] > > [...] IIRC (b) originated with Tim. > > I'm not sure who came up with the idea first, but as I remember it, the > first mention of this came in a separate thread on Python-Ideas: > > https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ide

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

This thread started with a request for educator feedback, which I took to mean observations of student reactions. I've only had the chance to test the proposal on ~20 students so far, but I'd like the chance to gather more data for your consideration before the PEP is accepted or rejected. On Su

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:06 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > Remember, the driving use-case which started this (ever-so-long) > discussion was the ability to push data into a comprehension and then > update it on each iteration, something like this: > > x = initial_value() > results = [x :=

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

[Guido] > A quick follow-up: PEP 572 currently has two ideas: (a) introduce := for inline > assignment, (b) when := is used in a comprehension, set the scope for the > target as if the assignment occurred outside any comprehensions. It seems > we have more support for (a) than for (b) -- at least N

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 09:24:39AM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: > A quick follow-up: PEP 572 currently has two ideas: (a) introduce := for > inline assignment, (b) when := is used in a comprehension, set the scope > for the target as if the assignment occurred outside any comprehensions. It > see

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 04:33:38PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: [...] > > Making the intentional choice to use an assignment expression is not > > really "implicit" in any meaningful sense. > > No, it's actually implicit: there's an extra "global NAME" or > "nonlocal NAME" in the equivalent code for

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

A quick follow-up: PEP 572 currently has two ideas: (a) introduce := for inline assignment, (b) when := is used in a comprehension, set the scope for the target as if the assignment occurred outside any comprehensions. It seems we have more support for (a) than for (b) -- at least Nick and Greg see

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 05:24:12PM +0300, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote: > An expression is intuitively thought to be self-contained i.e. without > side effects. > if I write `a=b+1`, I'm not expecting it to do anything except assigning > `a'. a = d.pop(1) a = d.setdefault(key, 0) chars_wri

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On 24.06.2018 9:53, Chris Angelico wrote: On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: On 24 June 2018 at 15:56, Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 02:33:59PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: Given that PEP 572 *is* proposing implicit comprehension state export, "Implicit" an

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 03:56:47PM +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > There is no consensus that the change to comprehensions was a good thing > or justified. On re-reading that, I think its wrong -- it wasn't really what I intended to say. What I intended to say was, in hindsight, more like: *De

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On 24 June 2018 at 16:53, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> On 24 June 2018 at 15:56, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >>> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 02:33:59PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: >>> Given that PEP 572 *is* proposing implicit comprehension state exp

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 24 June 2018 at 15:56, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 02:33:59PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >>> Given that PEP 572 *is* proposing implicit comprehension state export, >> >> "Implicit" and "explicit" are two terms whic

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On 24 June 2018 at 15:56, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 02:33:59PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: > >> Given that PEP 572 *is* proposing implicit comprehension state export, > > "Implicit" and "explicit" are two terms which often get misused to mean > "I don't like it" and "I do lik

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 02:33:59PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: > Given that PEP 572 *is* proposing implicit comprehension state export, "Implicit" and "explicit" are two terms which often get misused to mean "I don't like it" and "I do like it". Making the intentional choice to use an assignment

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On 23 June 2018 at 13:48, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 12:22:33AM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: > [...] >> plenty of >> functional-language-inspired documentation to instead encourage folks >> to view comprehensions as tightly encapsulated declarative container >> construction syn

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On 2018-06-22 19:46, Steven D'Aprano wrote: - the inexplicable (to me) decision to say "for x of array" instead of "for x in array"; Believe JavaScript has for…in, but as usual in the language it is broken and they needed a few more tries to get it right. for…of is the latest version and

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On 23 June 2018 at 09:06, Greg Ewing wrote: > Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >> x:= f():" implies "x" is already defined as a target somewhere else in >> the current scope, while "if x := f() given x:" potentially introduces >> "x" as a new local target > > > N. this is just taking a bad idea and

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On 23.06.2018 5:46, Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 10:59:43AM -0700, Michael Selik wrote: I've started testing the proposed syntax when I teach. I don't have a large sample yet, but most students either dislike it or don't appreciate the benefits. They state a clear preference f

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 09:08:37PM -0700, Chris Barker wrote: > > So if you absolutely need to teach it to a beginner, it > > shouldn't be difficult once they understand the difference between an > > expression and a statement. > > > > probably not, though that's a distinction that's mostly acade

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 7:23 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > But once it becomes a more common idiom, students will see it in the wild > > pretty early in their path to learning python. So we'll need to start > > introducing it earlier than later. > > Students see many features early in their path

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 1:48 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > I can't say I've done a broad survey, but the third-party documentation > I've read on comprehensions typically glosses over the scoping issues > without mentioning them. To the extent that scoping is even hinted at, > comprehensions are tr

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 12:22:33AM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: [...] > * for the reactions to my description of the currently proposed parent > local scoping behaviour in comprehensions, I'd use the word > "horrified", and feel I wasn't overstating the response :) Without knowing how you worded th

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 10:59:43AM -0700, Michael Selik wrote: > > > I've started testing the proposed syntax when I teach. I don't have a > > > large > > > sample yet, but most students either dislike it or don't appreciate the > > > benefits. They state a clear preference for shorter, simpler li

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 11:28:45AM -0700, Chris Barker via Python-Dev wrote: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 10:09 AM, Michael Selik wrote: > > > I forgot to add that I don't anticipate changing my lesson plans if this > > proposal is accepted. There's already not enough time to teach everything > > I'

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

Nick Coghlan wrote: x:= f():" implies "x" is already defined as a target somewhere else in the current scope, while "if x := f() given x:" potentially introduces "x" as a new local target N. this is just taking a bad idea and making it worse, IMO. I'm -1 on any contortions designed to

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 10:09 AM, Michael Selik wrote: > I forgot to add that I don't anticipate changing my lesson plans if this > proposal is accepted. There's already not enough time to teach everything > I'd like. Including a new assignment operator would distract from the > learning objectiv

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 10:19 AM Chris Angelico wrote: > On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 3:02 AM, Michael Selik wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 8:09 AM Antoine Pitrou > wrote: > >> > >> Thank you. Personally, I'd like to see feedback from > >> educators/teachers after they take the time to read the

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 3:02 AM, Michael Selik wrote: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 8:09 AM Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> >> Thank you. Personally, I'd like to see feedback from >> educators/teachers after they take the time to read the PEP and take >> some time to think about its consequences. > > > I'v

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 10:02 AM Michael Selik wrote: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 8:09 AM Antoine Pitrou > wrote: > >> Thank you. Personally, I'd like to see feedback from >> educators/teachers after they take the time to read the PEP and take >> some time to think about its consequences. > > I f

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 8:09 AM Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Thank you. Personally, I'd like to see feedback from > educators/teachers after they take the time to read the PEP and take > some time to think about its consequences. > I've started testing the proposed syntax when I teach. I don't have

Re: [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 00:22:33 +1000 Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 22 June 2018 at 02:26, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Indeed. But, for a syntax addition such as PEP 572, I think it would be > > a good idea to ask their opinion to teaching/education specialists. > > > > As far as I'm concerned, if teacher

<    1   2