Related and probably more common is the need for the line-continuation operator for long/multiple context managers with "with". I assume that's come up before, but was it also just a low priority rather than any technical reason?
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > Actually multi-line import doesn't work: > > File ".\Untitled.py", line 1 > import (tokenize, > ^ > SyntaxError: invalid syntax > > I think you're getting this mixed up with parentheses being allowed in > `from ... import (...)` syntax. So unless there is another single-word > keyword that allows multi-line arguments using parentheses I don't think > there's an inconsistency here. > > Plus, as Guido pointed out, the current syntax isn't preventing you from > doing something you can already do. So if you want to add parentheses > support to global, nonlocal, and import, you can propose a patch, but it's > not a priority to solve without someone providing a solution since it > doesn't open up anything new for something people don't use on a regular > basis. > > > On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 at 11:39 João Matos <jcrma...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> You are correct, my mistake. I should have written global and not globals. >> >> The purpose of using parentheses on the import statement is not (in my >> view) for operational efficiency but for appearance/cleaness. >> The same applies to using it to global. >> >> One does not need to have 10 global vars. It may have to do with var >> name length and the 79 max line length. >> >> This is an example from my one of my programs: >> global existing_graph, expected_duration_in_sec, file_size, \ >> file_mtime, no_change_counter >> >> Anyway, the use of global being rare is of no concern. The point of my >> suggestion is standardization. >> My opinion is that a standard language is easier to learn (and teach) >> than one that has different syntax for the same issue, depending on the >> statement. >> >> In short, if the recommended multi-line use for import is >> >> import (a, b, >> c) >> >> instead of >> >> import a, b, \ >> c >> >> Then the same should apply to global. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> JM >> >> >> >> >> On 23-01-2017 19:25, Terry Reedy wrote: >> > On 1/23/2017 1:43 PM, João Matos wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> I would like to suggest that globals should follow the existing rule >> >> (followed by the import statement, the if statement and in other >> places) >> >> for extending beyond 1 line using parentheses. >> >> Like this: >> >> globals (var_1, var_2, >> >> var_3) >> >> >> >> instead of what must be done now, which is: >> >> globals var_1, var_2 \ >> >> var_3 >> > >> > The declaration keyword is 'global'; 'globals' is the built-in >> > function. In any case >> > >> > global var_1, var_2 >> > global var_3 >> > >> > works fine. There is no connection between the names and, unlike with >> > import, no operational efficiency is gained by mashing the statements >> > together. >> > >> > This issue should be rare. The global statement is only needed when >> > one is rebinding global names within a function*. If a function >> > rebinds 10 different global names, the design should probably be >> > re-examined. >> > >> > * 'global' at class scope seems useless. >> > >> > a = 0 >> > class C: >> > a = 1 >> > >> > has the same effect as >> > a = 0 >> > a = 1 >> > class C: pass >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Python-ideas mailing list >> Python-ideas@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas >> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
