On 28.06.2018 2:31, Greg Ewing wrote: > Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> The *very first* motivating example for this proposal came from a >> comprehension. >> >> I think it is both unfortunate and inevitable that the discussion bogged >> down in comprehension-hell. > > I think the unfortunateness started when we crossed over from > talking about binding a temporary name for use *within* a > comprehension or expression, to binding a name for use *outside* > the comprehension or expression where it's bound. > I've shown in <05f368c2-3cd2-d7e0-9f91-27afb40d5b35 at mail.mipt.ru> (27 Jun 2018 17:07:24 +0300) that assignment expressions are fine in most use cases without any changes to scoping whatsoever. So, as Guido suggested in <CAP7+vJ+xBAT4ZvAo4B7qSqxnnpj8jJ1VZ-Le7EwT8=n-UTjE3Q at mail.gmail.com> (26 Jun 2018 19:36:14 -0700), the scoping matter can be split into a separate PEP and discussion. > As long as it's for internal use, whether it's in a comprehension > or not isn't an issue. > >> Tim Peters has also given a couple of good examples of mathematical >> code that would benefit strongly from this feature. >> >> Going back a few months now, they were the examples that tipped me over > > Well, I remain profoundly unconvinced that writing comprehensions > with side effects is ever a good idea, and Tim's examples did > nothing to change that. > -- Regards, Ivan
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