[Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)
On 6/24/2018 7:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I'd wager that the people who might be most horrified about it
the (b) scoping rule change
> would be people who feel strongly that the change to the
> comprehension scope rules in Python 3 is a big improvement,
I might not be one of those 'most horrified' by (b), but I increasingly
don't like it, and I was at best -0 on the comprehension scope change.
To me, iteration variable assignment in the current scope is a
non-problem. So to me the change was mostly useless churn. Little
benefit, little harm. And not worth fighting when others saw a benefit.
However, having made the change to nested scopes, I think we should
stick with them. Or repeal them. (I believe there is another way to
isolate iteration names -- see below). To me, (b) amounts to half
repealing the nested scope change, making comprehensions half-fowl,
> and who are familiar with the difference in implementation
> of comprehensions (though not generator expressions) in Python 2 vs. 3.
That I pretty much am, I think. In Python 2, comprehensions (the fish)
were, at least in effect, expanded in-line to a normal for loop.
Generator expressions (the fowls) were different. They were, and still
are, expanded into a temporary generator function whose return value is
dropped back into the original namespace. Python 3 turned
comprehensions (with 2 news varieties thereof) into fowls also,
temporary functions whose return value is dropped back in the original
namespace. The result is that a list comprehension is equivalent to
list(generator_ expression), even though, for efficiency, it is not
implemented that way. (To me, this unification is more a benefit than
(b) proposes to add extra hidden code in and around the temporary
function to partly undo the isolation. list comprehensions would no
longer be equivalent to list(generator_expression), unless
generator_expressions got the same treatment, in which case they would
no longer be equivalent to calling the obvious generator function.
Breaking either equivalence might break someone's code.
How loop variables might be isolated without a nested scope: After a
comprehension is parsed, so that names become strings, rename the loop
variables to something otherwise illegal. For instance, i could become
'<i>', just as lambda becomes '<lambda>' as the name of the resulting
function. Expand the comprehension as in Python 2, except for deleting
the loop names along with the temporary result name.
Assignment expressions within a comprehension would become assignment
expressions within the for loop expansion and would automatically add or
replace values in the namespace containing the comprehension. In other
words, I am suggesting that if we want name expressions in
comprehensions to act as they would in Python 2, then we should consider
reverting to an altered version of the Python 2 expansion.
In any case, I think (b) should be a separate PEP linked to a PEP for
(a). The decision for (a) could be reject (making (b) moot), accept
with (b), or accept unconditionally (but still consider (b)).
Terry Jan Reedy