[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Python-Dev] (name := expression) doesn't fit the narrative of PEP 20

On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 7:11 AM, 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 ;-)

Well, now, that explains a lot! :-)

> 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"
> ;-)

True, but sometimes it takes two or three emails before I actually
understand the objection enough to know that it's actually irrelevant
:| I'm going to start ignoring any message that I don't understand, in
the hopes that it doesn't actually mean anything. :|