RetroSearch Browse

Thu Apr 26 05:59:43 EDT 2018 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2018-April/153103.html

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Łukasz Langa <lukasz at langa.pl> wrote:

>
> > On 25 Apr, 2018, at 1:28 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> >
> > You don't seem to grasp the usability improvements this will give. I
> hear you but at this point appeals to Python's "Zen" don't help you.
>
> This reads dismissive to me. I did read the PEP and followed the
> discussion on
> python-dev. I referred to PEP 20 because it distills what's unique about
> the
> value proposition of Python. It's our shared vocabulary.
>
> Perhaps so, but no PEP is chiselled in stone, and I would suggest that
PEP 20 is the least authoritative from a didactic point of view.

> Can you address the specific criticism I had? To paraphrase it without PEP
> 20
> jargon:
>
> > (name := expression) makes code less uniform.  It inserts more
> information
> > into a place that is already heavily packed with information (logic
> tests).
>
>
One could argue the same about list comprehensions if one chose: they make
code denser (by expressing the same algorithm in a shorter spelling). I'm
not sure what you mean by "less uniform."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20180426/a3e1c9df/attachment.html>

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2018-April/153103.html below:

[Python-Dev] (name := expression) doesn't fit the narrative of PEP 20