On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 at 01:45, Jon Ribbens via Python-list
wrote:
> My biggest complaint about := is the arbitrary and mysterious
> restrictions on what you can use on the left hand side. You can't
> even say "a.b := c". The PEP that introduced ":=" barely even
> mentions these restrictions, let al
On 2026-06-15, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Jon Ribbens writes:
>>> { a : int(b)) for x in xs if (a,b := x.split()) }
>> No, for three reasons. Firstly, the lines with units result in x.split()
>> having 3 members, so you can't assign it to a 2-tuple.
>
> Oh yes I had intended to say x.split()[:2] but so
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 at 05:41, Rob Cliffe via Python-list
wrote:
> Chris, you say the restriction is not arbitrary. Well, it seems so to
> me. Why not
> a.b := c # as Jon mentioned L[2:4] := M[3:5] L[3] := x (a,b) := (c,d) Of
> course these would be part of an expression, not complete lines of co
On 15/06/2026 17:51, Chris Angelico via Python-list wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 at 01:45, Jon Ribbens via Python-list
wrote:
My biggest complaint about := is the arbitrary and mysterious
restrictions on what you can use on the left hand side. You can't
even say "a.b := c". The PEP that introdu
