On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 6:59 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> > wrote: > > Does the PEP currently propose to *allow* that horrible example? I > thought > > Tim Peters successfully pleaded to *only* allow a single "NAME := > <expr>". > > 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! > > I don't see much value in restricting the assignment target to names > only, but if that's what it takes, it can be restricted, at least > initially. All of this is an exercise in listening and compromise, not in solving puzzles. > As to chaining... well, since the entire construct (target > := expr) is an expression, it can be used on the right of :=, so short > of outright forbidding it, there's not a lot to be done. > It would be more work but it can definitely be done (perhaps by introducing a syntactic construct of intermediate precedence). People could write "a := (b := foo())" but that way they resolve the ambiguity. Although if we restrict targets to just names there's less concern about ambiguity. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20180420/19320e93/attachment-0001.html>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4