Re: [Python-ideas] Augmented assignment syntax for objects.

On 29 April 2017 at 09:51, Ivan Levkivskyi wrote: > typing.NamedTuple was already mentioned in this discussion, I just would > like to add few comments: > > 1. I think that changing Python syntax to support declarative classes is not > a realistic option in nearby future. >

Re: [Python-ideas] Augmented assignment syntax for objects.

On 29 April 2017 at 03:00, Mike Miller wrote: > On 2017-04-28 06:07, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> For a *lot* of classes, what we want to be able to define is: >> >> - a set of data fields >> - a basic initialiser to set those fields by name >> - a repr based on those fields

Re: [Python-ideas] Augmented assignment syntax for objects.

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 3:07 PM Nick Coghlan wrote: > Yes, the point I attempted to raise earlier: at the language design > level, "How do we make __init__ methods easier to write?" is the > *wrong question* to be asking. It's treating the symptom (writing an > imperative

Re: [Python-ideas] Augmented assignment syntax for objects.

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:04:00PM +0100, Erik wrote: > Isn't binding an object to a namespace the same operation that > assignment performs? Yes. > So it's a type of assignment, and one that doesn't require the name to > be spelled twice in the current syntax (and that's partly why I took >

Re: [Python-ideas] Augmented assignment syntax for objects.

On 28 April 2017 at 23:04, Erik wrote: >> See what I mean? Things get out of hand *very* fast. > > I don't see how that's getting "out of hand". The proposal is nothing more > complicated than a slightly-different spelling of assignment. It could be > done today with a