On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 1:23 AM, Peter O'Connor
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> In comparison, I think that := is much simpler.
>
>
> In this case that's true, but a small modification:
>
> updates = {
> y: do_something_to(potential_update)
> for x in need_initialization_nodes
> for y in [x, *x.synthetic_inputs()]
> if potential_update is not None
> given potential_update = command.create_potential_update(y)
> }
>
> Shows the flexibility of this given syntax vs ":="
I don't understand what you're showcasing here. With :=, you give a
name to something at the exact point that it happens:
updates = {
y: do_something_to(potential_update)
for x in need_initialization_nodes
for y in [x, *x.synthetic_inputs()]
if (potential_update :=
command.create_potential_update(y)) is not None
}
Personally, I'd use a shorter name for something that's used in such a
small scope (same as you use one-letter "x" and "y"). But that's the
only way that the 'given' syntax looks at all better - by encouraging
you to use yet another line, it conceals some of its immense
verbosity. (Note how the name "potential_update" is used twice with
:=, once to set and one to retrieve; but with given, it's used three
times - retrieve, retrieve, and set.)
How does this show that 'given' is more flexible?
ChrisA
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
