[Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)
Greg Ewing
greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz
Fri Jun 22 19:06:15 EDT 2018
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Fri Jun 22 19:06:15 EDT 2018
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
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
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list