RetroSearch Browse

Fri Jun 22 19:06:15 EDT 2018 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2018-June/153999.html

Nick Coghlan wrote:
> x:= f():" implies "x" is already defined as a target somewhere else in
> the current scope, while "if x := f() given x:" potentially introduces
> "x" as a new local target

Noooo..... this is just taking a bad idea and making it
worse, IMO.

I'm -1 on any contortions designed to allow comprehensions
to assign to things in outer scopes. All the proposed use
cases I've seen for this have not improved readability
over writing a function that does things the usual way.

Can we please leave comprehensions as declarative
constructs? The best tools do just one thing and do
it well. These proposals seem to be trying to turn
comprehensions into swiss army knives.

-- 
Greg

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2018-June/153999.html below:

[Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)