On 23 March 2018 at 20:01, Chris Angelico <[email protected]> wrote:
> Apologies for letting this languish; life has an annoying habit of
> getting in the way now and then.
>
> Feedback from the previous rounds has been incorporated. From here,
> the most important concern and question is: Is there any other syntax
> or related proposal that ought to be mentioned here? If this proposal
> is rejected, it should be rejected with a full set of alternatives.
I was writing a new stdlib test case today, and thinking about how I
might structure it differently in a PEP 572 world, and realised that a
situation the next version of the PEP should discuss is this one:
# Dict display
data = {
key_a: 1,
key_b: 2,
key_c: 3,
}
# Set display with local name bindings
data = {
local_a := 1,
local_b := 2,
local_c := 3,
}
# List display with local name bindings
data = {
local_a := 1,
local_b := 2,
local_c := 3,
}
# Dict display
data = {
key_a: local_a := 1,
key_b: local_b := 2,
key_c: local_c := 3,
}
# Dict display with local key name bindings
data = {
local_a := key_a: 1,
local_b := key_b: 2,
local_c := key_c: 3,
}
I don't think this is bad (although the interaction with dicts is a
bit odd), and I don't think it counts as a rationale either, but I do
think the fact that it becomes possible should be noted as an outcome
arising from the "No sublocal scoping" semantics.
Cheers,
Nick.
P.S. The specific test case is one where I want to test the three
different ways of spelling "the current directory" in some sys.path
manipulation code (the empty string, os.curdir, and os.getcwd()), and
it occurred to me that a version of PEP 572 that omits the sublocal
scoping concept will allow inline naming of parts of data structures
as you define them.
--
Nick Coghlan | [email protected] | Brisbane, Australia
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
