(original) (raw)
This seems more suitable for a style guide.
Enforcing such restrictions in the grammar would actually be complicated, due to nesting -- but even if it wasn't, I wouldn't want to, as I don't want to limit future generations to only the benefits of the new construct that we can now come up with. Orthogonality is a good thing in my mind, else we might never have had nested functions or conditional imports.
As to why you might want to use := in a function call, I could imagine writing
if validate(name := re.search(pattern, line).group(1)):
return name
The benefit of combining the assignment with the if would be more apparent if there was an if-elif...elif-else pattern, like here:
https://github.com/python/peps/pull/695/files#diff-09a4f112ea673a2339f0bec6014ff47fR409 (click off the comments to see it better).
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 6:12 AM Giampaolo Rodola' <g.rodola@gmail.com> wrote:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_Sorry in advance for opening yet another topic about PEP-572\. With PEP-572 being officially accepted I know debating its inclusion in the language is a useless exercise at this point, but since it's still in "draft" status I would like to express my opinion as I think this is a feature which can potentially be abused fairly easily. FWIW I initially found myself disliking the idea as a whole but https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/8122 made me (and others) reconsider it quite a bit (see: https://twitter.com/grodola/status/1015251302350245888). PR-8122 clearly shows an improvement in expressiveness and compactness (many folks argue this is too much) but PEP-572 as it currently stands is too permissive IMHO. My concern about "easily abusable ugly cases" still remains, and I think they should be banned instead of just discouraged in the PEP or in the doc. Since we spend way more time \*reading\* code rather than writing it, as a "reader" I would expect a more prudent approach to the problem.Proposal========1) allow only one := assignment per line in "if" statements:>>> if x := val1 and y := val2: # SyntaxError or SyntaxWarning>>> if x == val1 and y := val2: # SyntaxError or SyntaxWarning>>> if x := val1 and y == val2: # SyntaxError or SyntaxWarning>>> if x := val1: # OK>>> if (x := val1): # OK2) allow := in "while" statements, "if" statements and comprehensions only:>>> foo(x := 0) # SyntaxError>>> yield x := 3 # SyntaxError>>> assert y := 3 # SyntaxError3) (debatable) disallow := if the variable is already defined:>>> x = 5>>> if (x := val): # SyntaxError or SyntaxWarning4) ban "a = (b := c)", "x = a := (b := (c := d))" and similar (they're just too ugly IMHO)Rationale 1===========In visual terms assignments in Python have always occurred at the BEGINNING of the line and always on the most LEFT side:>>> foo = fun1()>>> bar = fun2()>>> baz = fun3()That is where I naturally expect an assignment to be when reading code. My main concern with PEP-572 is that an assignments can now occur at \*any point\* in the line:>>> foo = fun1()>>> bar = fun2()>>> if foo == val1 and bar == val2 and baz := fun3():... ...That forces me to visually scan the whole line horizontally from left to right 'till its end, looking for possible variables being set. I'm concerned that I will miss := occurrences because visually they are very similar to == unless parentheses are made mandatory:>>> if foo == val1 and bar == val2 and (baz := fun3()):... ...Also, in case of multi-line conditionals I have to visually scan the construct both horizontally AND vertically:>>> if (foo == val1 and \\... bar == val2 and \\... baz := val3):... ...Again, that is not a place where I would expect to find or look for a variable assignment. I know I wouldn't like to read or review a code which does that and I suspect linters will likely end up wanting to emit a warning in that case (see: https://github.com/PyCQA/pylint/issues/2246). https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/8116/files avoids using multiple := per line and that's why the result appears readable enough IMO.Rationale 2===========PEP-572 states:> The := operator may be used directly in a positional function call argumentThat means allowing:>>> foo(x := 0)I honestly don't see why anyone would want to call a function AND assign a variable value at the same time (except in comprehensions). With this in place I not only have to guard against "if" statements assigning values at any point in the code, but also function calls, both horizontally and vertically e.g.:>>> foo(some\_long\_var\_name, another\_one, x := bar(),y := fun())To me this looks like the perfect example of where this functionality can be abused. Also, I'm not clear what PEP-572 intend to do about "all other places". E.g. should these cases be allowed? (IMO no)>>> yield x := 3>>> assert y := 3--Giampaolo - http://grodola.blogspot.com
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)