I’d say that the existence of an escape hatch for things that can’t be expressed natively is itself a form of expressitivity. It’s one that’s near ubiquitous a

I’d say that the existence of an escape hatch for things that can’t be expressed natively is itself a form of expressitivity. It’s one that’s near ubiquitous among dynamically typed languages, so it doesn’t say much that Python has it, but it still provides a favorable comparison to some static languages. That said, this particular use case for eval is basically macros lite: the code being evaluated doesn’t generally depend on input to the resulting program, so it could have been expressed as a transformation to the module source code, i.e. a macro. And a true macro would be able to provide more natural syntax, whereas namedtuple requires stuffing the field names into a string (or using a wrapper based on some metaclass thing, but the syntax for that isn’t great either). Thus, languages that have macro support, both dynamically typed (Lisp) and statically (e.g. Rust), could be called more expressive in this respect.