(original) (raw)

Does the PEP currently propose to \*allow\* that horrible example? I thought Tim Peters successfully pleaded to \*only\* allow a single "NAME := ". You don't have to implement this restriction -- we know it's possible to implement, and if specifying this alone were to pull enough people from -1 to +0 there's a lot of hope!

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 6:04 AM, David Mertz <mertz@gnosis.cx> wrote:
\> It's horrors like this:
\>
\> g(items\[idx\] := idx := f())
\>
\> That make me maybe +0 if the PEP only allowed simple name targets, but
\> decisively -1 for any assignment target in the current PEP.

But that's my point: you shouldn't need to write that. Can anyone give
me a situation where that kind of construct is actually useful? Much
more common would be to use := inside the square brackets, which makes
the whole thing a lot more sane.

You can ALWAYS write stupid code. Nobody can or will stop you.

ChrisA
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org

--Guido van Rossum (python.org/\~guido)