On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 03:44 am, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2015-09-16, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: >> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 03:27 am, Grant Edwards wrote: >> >>> On 2015-09-16, Sven R. Kunze <srku...@mail.de> wrote: >>>> On 16.09.2015 18:57, Random832 wrote: >>>>> I think that chaining should be limited to: >>>>> >>>>> A) all operators are "=" >>>>> B) all operators are "is" >> >> [...] >>> I'm not all that sure A and B should be allowed. >> >> You can take `x == y == z` off me when you pry it from my cold, dead >> hands. > > Well, that case hadn't been mentioned yet. But, I agree that should be > added as case E and be allowed.
I assumed that since we were talking about *operators* and *comparisons*, Random832 had merely typoed "=" when (s)he meant "==", since assignment = is neither an operator nor a comparison. But while we're at it, you can also take away chained assignments over my dead body -- and even then, I'll probably come back from the grave as vengeful spirit to wreck bloody retribution on all those responsible. -- Steven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
