On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 03:54:30PM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> We should really take this back to python-ideas at this point.
Please no :-(
Variants of "let" etc were discussed earlier and didn't seem to get much
interest. Although I don't think "var" specifically was suggested
before, "l
On 2018-04-24 21:05, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Tim Peters wrote:
It would actually be quite convenient, and far less error-prone, to
add a binding construct inside a complicated expression for purposes
of running under a debugger. The alternative is typing the
Nick Coghlan wrote:
I'd be +0 on an "is=" spelling
But "is=' looks like some kind of comparison
operator. This seems even more conusing to me.
--
Greg
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-
On 4/24/2018 8:56 PM, Tim Peters wrote:
The alternative is typing the
sub-expression(s) of interest by hand at the debugger prompt, or
adding print()s, both of which are prone to introducing typos, or
changing results radically due to triggering side effects in the code
invoked by the duplicate
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 8:31 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> The most notable change since last posting is that the assignment
> target is no longer as flexible as with the statement form of
> assignment, but is restricted to a simple name.
>
> Note that the reference implementation has not been updat
101 - 105 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
