On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> wrote: >> Another alternative is to put a list literal on the lefthand side: >> >>>>> def f(): yield 42 >> >> ... >>>>> [result] = f() >>>>> result >> 42 > > Huh, was not aware of that alternate syntax.
Nor are most people. Nor is Python, in some places -- it seems like people forgot about it when writing some bits of the grammar. I'd suggest not using it. >> (If you're worried: neither the list nor the tuple will be created; the >> bytecode is identical in both cases) > > It can't possibly be created anyway. Python doesn't have a notion of > "assignable thing that, when assigned to, will assign to something > else" like C's pointers or C++'s references. There's nothing that you > could put into the list that would have this behaviour. C pointers don't do that either. It's really just references. (C pointers aren't any more action-at-a-distance than Python attributes.) Anyway, it could create a new list in Python, because Python can do whatever it wants. But it doesn't, because as you say, that wouldn't do anything. -- Devin -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
