[Python-Dev] (name := expression) doesn't fit the narrative of PEP 20
On Friday, April 27, 2018, Tim Peters <tim.peters at gmail.com> wrote:
> [Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com>]
> > ...
> > I don't understand why people bring up all these arguments that have
> > absolutely nothing to do with the proposal at hand. None of this has
> > in any way changed.
> That's easy: any time there's a long thread to which Guido has
> contributed at least twice, it will be seen as a Golden Opportunity to
> re-litigate every decision that's ever been made ;-)
> Some amount of that seems healthy to me (people are thinking about
> "language design" from a larger view than the proposal du jour). In
> this specific case, line-oriented coverage tools have missed
> accounting for all possible code paths since day #1; e.g.,
> x = f() or g()
> You don't need to reply to messages so obviously irrelevant to the PEP
> unless you want to. It's not like Guido will read them and go "oh! a
> binding expression in a ternary conditional is a fundamentally new
> potential problem for a line-oriented coverage tool! that's fatal"
I have shared with you the overlapping concerns about this feature proposal
that I believe should be explained with DO and DON'T in the docs and/or the
PEP and/or the style guide(s) for various organizations in the Pyrhon
This feature does require additions to the style-guide(s); which is why so
many have expressed concern about such a simple thing.
If you want to write debuggable and coverage-testable code, do not use the
assignment expression operator in ternary expressions or boolean-chained
The assignment expression operator is the only way to define variables with
only comprehension scope.
Do not do this:
x = 2
if (x == 3) or (x := 3):
What do we call that mistake?
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...