Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 03:36:18PM +0300, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote: > On 04.07.2018 15:29, Victor Stinner wrote: > >The PEP 572 has been approved, it's no longer worth it to discuss it ;-) > > > >Victor > > As of now, https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0572/ is marked as "draft".

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

On 04.07.2018 15:29, Victor Stinner wrote: The PEP 572 has been approved, it's no longer worth it to discuss it ;-) Victor As of now, https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0572/ is marked as "draft". 2018-07-04 13:21 GMT+02:00 Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer : was going to tell instead of := maybe

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

The PEP 572 has been approved, it's no longer worth it to discuss it ;-) Victor 2018-07-04 13:21 GMT+02:00 Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer : > was going to tell > > instead of := maybe => better > > := too close to other langs > > Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer > https://github.com/Abdur-rahmaanJ > >> Of the

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

agree for => but how many people use pascal eiffel etc? (go has a chance) that's a reminder of an old, fading epoch, bland IDEs, hard-to-crunch fonts BDL Guido once remarked in a pycon talk that today agencies would've charged you a high price to tell you what the word python might tickle in

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 03:21:29PM +0400, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote: > was going to tell > > instead of := maybe => better > > := too close to other langs The fact that := will be familiar to many people (especially if they know Go, Pascal or Eiffel etc) is a point in its favour.

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

was going to tell instead of := maybe => better := too close to other langs Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer https://github.com/Abdur-rahmaanJ Of the proposed syntaxes, I dislike identifer := expression less, but > I'd still rather not see it added. > ___ >

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

On 25.04.18 05:43, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 08:10:49PM -0500, Tim Peters wrote: > >> Binding expressions are debugger-friendly in that they _don't_ just >> vanish without a trace. It's their purpose to _capture_ the values of >> the expressions they name. Indeed, you may

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Victor Stinner wrote: > Even if the C language allows assignments in if, I avoid them, because > I regularly have to debug my own code in gdb ;-) > I personally haven't written a lot of C, so have no personal experience, but if this is at

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

On 24.04.2018 11:21, Victor Stinner wrote: I have been asked to express myself on the PEP 572. +1 I knew about the relationship between read and write. But your stance on debugging just makes it a thing. Thanks a lot! ___ Python-Dev mailing list

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 9:23 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Chris Angelico writes: > > > Well, true. The point isn't WHO you're dictating to, > > By "period here preferred," I meant I think it's mostly a waste of > space to mention dictation at all in that

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

Chris Angelico writes: > Well, true. The point isn't WHO you're dictating to, By "period here preferred," I meant I think it's mostly a waste of space to mention dictation at all in that document. But it's not a big deal to me, so how about changing "a student or junior programmer" to "another

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:53 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: > Well, true. The point isn't WHO you're dictating to, but that you can > dictate it at all. "Hmm, let's see. Toss a 'foo colon-equals' in front > of X, then print out what foo is." My day job involves a lot of > helping

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Chris Angelico writes: > > > Additionally, naming sub-parts of a large expression can assist an > > interactive debugger, providing useful display hooks and partial > > results. Without a way to

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

Chris Angelico writes: > Additionally, naming sub-parts of a large expression can assist an > interactive debugger, providing useful display hooks and partial > results. Without a way to capture sub-expressions inline, this > would require refactoring of the original code; with assignment >

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

Devin Jeanpierre writes: > Some other programming languages (thinking of Racket) solve this by > having the debugger let you step through expression evaluation, > without editing the code. Good tools are a wonderful thing, and I think pdb should be enhanced that way (by somebody who has the

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: > On 4/25/2018 6:10 AM, Steve Holden wrote: >> Indeed, in the cases where I currently find myself unwrapping expressions >> to capture their values in local variables for debugging purposes it would >> usually be far less

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

On 4/25/2018 6:10 AM, Steve Holden wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:56 AM, Tim Peters > wrote: [Tim] >> Binding expressions are debugger-friendly in that they _don't_ just >> vanish without a trace.  It's their purpose to _capture_

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:56 AM, Tim Peters wrote: > [Tim] > >> Binding expressions are debugger-friendly in that they _don't_ just > >> vanish without a trace. It's their purpose to _capture_ the values of > >> the expressions they name. Indeed, you may want to add them

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

On 4/24/2018 6:10 PM, Tim Peters wrote: Luckily, I only have to write code for me now, so am free to pick the perfect compromise in every case;-) QOTD !  I'm in the same situation. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

On 4/24/2018 8:56 PM, Tim Peters wrote: The alternative is typing the sub-expression(s) of interest by hand at the debugger prompt, or adding print()s, both of which are prone to introducing typos, or changing results radically due to triggering side effects in the code invoked by the

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

On 2018-04-24 21:05, Nathaniel Smith wrote: On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Tim Peters wrote: It would actually be quite convenient, and far less error-prone, to add a binding construct inside a complicated expression for purposes of running under a debugger. The

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:43 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 08:10:49PM -0500, Tim Peters wrote: > >> Binding expressions are debugger-friendly in that they _don't_ just >> vanish without a trace. It's their purpose to _capture_ the values of >> the

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Tim Peters wrote: > It would actually be quite convenient, and far less error-prone, to > add a binding construct inside a complicated expression for purposes > of running under a debugger. The alternative is typing the > sub-expression(s)

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

[Tim] >> Binding expressions are debugger-friendly in that they _don't_ just >> vanish without a trace. It's their purpose to _capture_ the values of >> the expressions they name. Indeed, you may want to add them all over >> the place inside expressions, never intending to use the names, just >>

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 08:10:49PM -0500, Tim Peters wrote: > Binding expressions are debugger-friendly in that they _don't_ just > vanish without a trace. It's their purpose to _capture_ the values of > the expressions they name. Indeed, you may want to add them all over > the place inside

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Victor Stinner wrote: > == Write code for babies! == > > Please don't write code for yourself, but write code for babies! :-) > These babies are going to maintain your code for the next 5 years, > while you moved to a different team or project

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

[Victor Stinner] ... > Tim Peter gaves the following example. "LONG" version: > > diff = x - x_base > if diff: > g = gcd(diff, n) > if g > 1: >return g > > versus the "SHORT" version: > > if (diff := x - x_base) and (g := gcd(diff, n)) > 1: >return g > > == Write == > > If your

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

On 04/24/2018 02:21 AM, Victor Stinner wrote: WARNING! I was (strongly) opposed to PEP 448 Unpacking Generalizations (ex: [1, 2, *list]) and PEP 498 f-string (f"Hello {name}"), whereas I am now a happy user of these new syntaxes. So I'm not sure that I have good tastes :-) Cool, you're

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 572: Write vs Read, Understand and Control Flow

On 2018-04-24 02:21, Victor Stinner wrote: > I have been asked to express myself on the PEP 572. I'm not sure that Thanks. Well written and I've had the same thoughts myself. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org