Op 27/10/2021 om 10:38 schreef dn via Python-list:
On 24/10/2021 22.23, O365 Dict wrote:
Well I have the following use case:
while (temp_result := calculate_next_couple(a, b))[1]:
a, b = temp_result
more calculations
Which IMO would be clearer if I could just write:
while ((a, b) := calculate_next_couple(a,b))[1]:
more calculations
Of course it would even more clear if I could write something like:
while (a, b) := calculate_next_couple(a, b); b:
more calculations
or
do:
a, b = calculate_next_couple(a, b)
while b:
more calculations
Found (all of) the above less-than-obvious to read. Putting it in front
of trainees this morning caused only confusion - even the
currently-legal variation.
A lot of python idioms are less than obvious for trainees when they first
encounter them. I don't think "Is obvious for trainess" is a good measure
to evaluate possible future programming constructs.
Accordingly: is this a job for the walrus operator at all? Let's "talk
of many [other] things"*.
...
That all looks simple. What is dn complaining about?
Could we use a data structure to continue to keep things straight-forward?
Yes off course we could. Before the walrus operator was introduced, we could
also introduce extra code so that we wouldn't need the walrus operator at all.
...
Hope the above gives you some ideas/pause for thought!
No they don't. You have taken an example to illustrate an idea and
treated it as if it was some production code you had to review.
What you are suggesting boils downto that if one has a loop in which
one has two work variables, with a condition on those variable to
control a loop. In order to make use of the walrus operator we should
combine those two work variables into some kind of instance no matter
how contrived.
--
Antoon Pardon.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
