Hello, On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 10:46:54 +0200 Serhiy Storchaka <storch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 05.02.21 09:51, Paul Sokolovsky пише: > > a0 = 0 > > b0 = 10 > > while ((a1, b1) := phi([a0, a2], [b0, b2]))[0] < 5: > > a2 = a1 + 1 > > b2 = b1 + 1 > > Such code quickly becomes unreadable. Especially if in real code > function has additional arguments and names are longer that 2-3 > characters. But at least it fully corresponds to the original statements and control flow of the program, that's the point! > The following code is not much larger but more clear and extensible: > > a0 = 0 > b0 = 10 > while True: > a1, b1 := phi([a0, a2], [b0, b2])) > if b1 >= 5: > break > a2 = a1 + 1 > b2 = b1 + 1 As I mentioned in other replies, that's what I've been doing. But that does *NOT* correspond to the original program, or SSA conversion of it. Instead, it's SSA + random munging. And when debugging SSA, you may argue what's worse: to look at 3-stories phi's, or to look at the code structure which doesn't correspond to the input code. But that's not the point. I now in https://bugs.python.org/issue43143 gave more down to earth example: For as long as you agree that following is acceptable: func(a := val) , then I'd say it really doesn't make much sense to argue that following should not be acceptable: min((b, a) := (a, b)) -- Best regards, Paul mailto:pmis...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/GBEIWEZGULUXJMSNILMNUF2WGOZQA46N/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
