On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 00:22:33 +1000 Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote: > On 22 June 2018 at 02:26, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote: > > Indeed. But, for a syntax addition such as PEP 572, I think it would be > > a good idea to ask their opinion to teaching/education specialists. > > > > As far as I'm concerned, if teachers and/or education specialists were > > to say PEP 572 is not a problem, my position would shift from negative > > towards neutral. > > I asked a handful of folks at the Education Summit the next day about it: > > * for the basic notion of allowing expression level name binding using > the "NAME := EXPR" notation, the reactions ranged from mildly negative > (I read it as only a "-0" rather than a "-1") to outright positive. Thank you. Personally, I'd like to see feedback from educators/teachers after they take the time to read the PEP and take some time to think about its consequences. My main concern is we're introducing a second different way of doing something which is really fundamental. > * for the reactions to my description of the currently proposed parent > local scoping behaviour in comprehensions, I'd use the word > "horrified", and feel I wasn't overstating the response :) [...] Hmm... I don't think conflating the assignment expression proposal with comprehension semantics issues is helping the discussion. Regards Antoine.
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