9 ms·

> Disagree: the recent changes are things I put to work immediately and in a large fraction of the code. That says nothing about their quality. It just says yo

> Disagree: the recent changes are things I put to work immediately and in a large fraction of the code. That says nothing about their quality. It just says you like them. If you gave me unhealthy food I'd probably eat it immediately too. Doesn't mean I think it's good for me. > Ignore small syntax stuff like := and focus on the big stuff. They're not "small" when you immediately start using them in a "large fraction of your code". And a simple syntax that's easy to understand is practically Python's raison d'être. They added constructs with some pretty darn unexpected meanings into what was supposed to be an accessible language, and you want people to ignore them? I would ignore them in a language like C++ (heck, I would ignore syntax complications in C++ to a large degree), but ignoring features that make Python harder to read? To me that's like putting performance-killing features in C++ and asking people to ignore them. It's not that I can't ignore them—it's that that's not the point.

DangitBobby 5y ago
I simply do not understand how the walrus operator is harder to read. Maybe an example? my_match = regex.match(foo) if my_match: return my_match.groups() # continues with the now useless my_match in scope Versus if my_match := regex.match(foo): return my_match.groups() # continues without useless my_match in scope How is the second one less readable? Have you ever heard of a real world example of a beginner or literally anyone ever actually expressing confusion over this?
- dataflow 5y ago
  The problem isn't that simple use case. Although even in that case, they already had '=' as an assignment operator, and they could've easily kept it like the majority of other languages do instead of introducing an inconsistency. The more major problem with the walrus operator is more complicated expressions they made legal with it. Like, could you explain to me why making these legal was a good thing? def foo() return ... def bar(): yield ... while foo() or (w := bar()) < 10: # w is in-scope here, but possibly nonexistent! # Even in C++ it would at least *exist*! print(w) # The variable is still in-scope here, and still *nonexistent* # Ditto as above, but even worse outside the loop print(w := w + 1) If they just wanted your use case, they could've made only expressions of the form 'if var := val' legal, and maybe the same with 'while', not full-blown assignments in arbitrary expressions, which they had (very wisely) prohibited for decades for the sake of readability. And they would've scoped the variable to the 'if', not made it accessible after the conditional. But nope, they went ahead and just did what '=' does in any language, and to add insult to injury, they didn't even keep the existing syntax when it has exactly the same meaning. And it's not like they even added += and -= and all those along with it (or +:= and -:= because apparently that's their taste) to make it more useful in that direction, if they really felt in-expression assignments were useful, so it's not like you get those benefits either.
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    In your example, if you leave out the parentheses around w := bar(), you get "SyntaxError: cannot use assignment expressions with operator" which makes me think it's a bug in the interpreter and not intentionally designed to allow it. I am baffled to learn that it's kept in scope outside of the statement it's assigned, and I agree it would have a negative impact on readability if used outside of the if statement.
    - dataflow 5y ago
      > if you leave out the parentheses around w := bar(), you get "SyntaxError: cannot use assignment expressions with operator" which makes me think it's a bug in the interpreter and not intentionally designed to allow it. No, I'm pretty sure that's intentional. You want the left-hand side of an assignment to be crystal clear, which "foo() or w := bar()" is not. It looks like it's assigning to (foo() or w).
      - DangitBobby 5y ago
        To be clear: def thing(): return True if thing() or w:= "ok": # SyntaxError: cannot use assignment expressions with operator pass print(w) . . . if thing() or (w := "ok"): pass print(w) # NameError: name 'w' is not defined The first error makes me think your concern (that w is conditionally undefined) was anticipated and supposed to be guarded against with the SyntaxError. I believe the fact you can bypass it with parentheses is a bug and not an intentional design decision.
        dataflow 5y ago
        Oh I see, you're looking at it from that angle. But no, it's intentional. Check out PEP 572 [1]: > The motivation for this special case is twofold. First, it allows us to conveniently capture a "witness" for an any() expression, or a counterexample for all(), for example: if any((comment := line).startswith('#') for line in lines): print("First comment:", comment) else: print("There are no comments") I have a hard time believing even the authors (let alone you) could tell me with a straight face that that's easy to read. If they really believe that, I... have questions about their experiences. The beauty of Python... [1] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0572/ https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0572/
- pansa2 5y ago
  The walrus operator provides no benefit here. `my_match` is still in scope in both cases. Python’s `if` statements do not introduce a new scope.
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    I know they don't, normally. I really thought that was basically the point of the walrus operator to begin with, that the variable was only in scope for the lifetime of the if statement where it's needed. Huge bummer to find out that's not true.
    - dataflow 5y ago
      Looks like now you're seeing why it's an abomination ;)
      - DangitBobby 5y ago
        IMO the real abomination was already present in the language, which is that if blocks do not introduce new scope. My IDE protects me from the bugs this could easily introduce when I try to use a variable that may not yet be in scope, but it should be detected before runtime. I will readily admit that the walrus operator doesn't do what I thought it did and I have no interest in whatever utility it provides as it exists today.
        dataflow 5y ago
        > IMO the real abomination was already present in the language, which is that if blocks do not introduce new scope. Definitely. You would think if they're going to undermine decades of their own philosophy, they would instead introduce variable declarations and actually help mitigate some bugs in the process.
    - slightwinder 5y ago
      Scoop in python is normally defined by functions/methods, not blocks. The same happens with for-loos and with-blocks. So this is consistent. And this good, because it can be very useful. The exception here are try/except-blocks, where the fetched error is cleaned up after leaving the except-block, for reasons.
- Linosaurus 5y ago
  There's this example from an explanation linked elsewhere in the discussion. The relevant parts of the if statement are now much further separated. if (percentage := ((student["marks"]/700)*100)) > 70:
- IlliOnato 5y ago
  I don't know how important this is, but I believe it does make it less readable for "outsiders". As a non-Python programmer it is usually pretty easy for me to correctly guess what a piece of Python code does. (And once in a while I need to take a look at some Python code). Walrus operator got me. I tried to guess what it did, but even having simple code examples I could not. My guesses were along the lines of binding versus plain assignment, or some such. None of my guesses were even close. I had to google it to find out (of course I could also read the documentation).

DangitBobby 5y ago

I simply do not understand how the walrus operator is harder to read. Maybe an example? my_match = regex.match(foo) if my_match: return my_match.groups() # continues with the now useless my_match in scope Versus if my_match := regex.match(foo): return my_match.groups() # continues without useless my_match in scope How is the second one less readable? Have you ever heard of a real world example of a beginner or literally anyone ever actually expressing confusion over this?

dataflow 5y ago
The problem isn't that simple use case. Although even in that case, they already had '=' as an assignment operator, and they could've easily kept it like the majority of other languages do instead of introducing an inconsistency. The more major problem with the walrus operator is more complicated expressions they made legal with it. Like, could you explain to me why making these legal was a good thing? def foo() return ... def bar(): yield ... while foo() or (w := bar()) < 10: # w is in-scope here, but possibly nonexistent! # Even in C++ it would at least *exist*! print(w) # The variable is still in-scope here, and still *nonexistent* # Ditto as above, but even worse outside the loop print(w := w + 1) If they just wanted your use case, they could've made only expressions of the form 'if var := val' legal, and maybe the same with 'while', not full-blown assignments in arbitrary expressions, which they had (very wisely) prohibited for decades for the sake of readability. And they would've scoped the variable to the 'if', not made it accessible after the conditional. But nope, they went ahead and just did what '=' does in any language, and to add insult to injury, they didn't even keep the existing syntax when it has exactly the same meaning. And it's not like they even added += and -= and all those along with it (or +:= and -:= because apparently that's their taste) to make it more useful in that direction, if they really felt in-expression assignments were useful, so it's not like you get those benefits either.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  In your example, if you leave out the parentheses around w := bar(), you get "SyntaxError: cannot use assignment expressions with operator" which makes me think it's a bug in the interpreter and not intentionally designed to allow it. I am baffled to learn that it's kept in scope outside of the statement it's assigned, and I agree it would have a negative impact on readability if used outside of the if statement.
  - dataflow 5y ago
    > if you leave out the parentheses around w := bar(), you get "SyntaxError: cannot use assignment expressions with operator" which makes me think it's a bug in the interpreter and not intentionally designed to allow it. No, I'm pretty sure that's intentional. You want the left-hand side of an assignment to be crystal clear, which "foo() or w := bar()" is not. It looks like it's assigning to (foo() or w).
    - DangitBobby 5y ago
      To be clear: def thing(): return True if thing() or w:= "ok": # SyntaxError: cannot use assignment expressions with operator pass print(w) . . . if thing() or (w := "ok"): pass print(w) # NameError: name 'w' is not defined The first error makes me think your concern (that w is conditionally undefined) was anticipated and supposed to be guarded against with the SyntaxError. I believe the fact you can bypass it with parentheses is a bug and not an intentional design decision.
      - dataflow 5y ago
        Oh I see, you're looking at it from that angle. But no, it's intentional. Check out PEP 572 [1]: > The motivation for this special case is twofold. First, it allows us to conveniently capture a "witness" for an any() expression, or a counterexample for all(), for example: if any((comment := line).startswith('#') for line in lines): print("First comment:", comment) else: print("There are no comments") I have a hard time believing even the authors (let alone you) could tell me with a straight face that that's easy to read. If they really believe that, I... have questions about their experiences. The beauty of Python... [1] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0572/ https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0572/
pansa2 5y ago
The walrus operator provides no benefit here. `my_match` is still in scope in both cases. Python’s `if` statements do not introduce a new scope.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  I know they don't, normally. I really thought that was basically the point of the walrus operator to begin with, that the variable was only in scope for the lifetime of the if statement where it's needed. Huge bummer to find out that's not true.
  - dataflow 5y ago
    Looks like now you're seeing why it's an abomination ;)
    - DangitBobby 5y ago
      IMO the real abomination was already present in the language, which is that if blocks do not introduce new scope. My IDE protects me from the bugs this could easily introduce when I try to use a variable that may not yet be in scope, but it should be detected before runtime. I will readily admit that the walrus operator doesn't do what I thought it did and I have no interest in whatever utility it provides as it exists today.
      - dataflow 5y ago
        > IMO the real abomination was already present in the language, which is that if blocks do not introduce new scope. Definitely. You would think if they're going to undermine decades of their own philosophy, they would instead introduce variable declarations and actually help mitigate some bugs in the process.
  - slightwinder 5y ago
    Scoop in python is normally defined by functions/methods, not blocks. The same happens with for-loos and with-blocks. So this is consistent. And this good, because it can be very useful. The exception here are try/except-blocks, where the fetched error is cleaned up after leaving the except-block, for reasons.
Linosaurus 5y ago
There's this example from an explanation linked elsewhere in the discussion. The relevant parts of the if statement are now much further separated. if (percentage := ((student["marks"]/700)*100)) > 70:
IlliOnato 5y ago
I don't know how important this is, but I believe it does make it less readable for "outsiders". As a non-Python programmer it is usually pretty easy for me to correctly guess what a piece of Python code does. (And once in a while I need to take a look at some Python code). Walrus operator got me. I tried to guess what it did, but even having simple code examples I could not. My guesses were along the lines of binding versus plain assignment, or some such. None of my guesses were even close. I had to google it to find out (of course I could also read the documentation).