[Python-Dev] Informal educator feedback on PEP 572 (was Re: 2018 Python Language Summit coverage, last part)

[Ivan Pozdeev]

On 26.06.2018 0:13, Steve Holden wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:37 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu 
> <mailto:tjreedy at udel.edu>> wrote:
>
>     On 6/24/2018 7:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>         I'd wager that the people who might be most horrified about it
>
>
>     the (b) scoping rule change
>
>         would be people who feel strongly that the change to the
>         comprehension scope rules in Python 3 is a big improvement,
>
>
>     I might not be one of those 'most horrified' by (b), but I
>     increasingly don't like it, and I was at best -0 on the
>     comprehension scope change. To me, iteration variable assignment
>     in the current scope is a non-problem.  So to me the change was
>     mostly useless churn.  Little benefit, little harm.  And not worth
>     fighting when others saw a benefit.
>
>     However, having made the change to nested scopes, I think we
>     should stick with them.  Or repeal them.  (I believe there is
>     another way to isolate iteration names -- see below).  To me, (b)
>     amounts to half repealing the nested scope change, making
>     comprehensions half-fowl, half-fish chimeras.
>
> ​[...]​
>
>     -- 
>     Terry Jan Reedy
>
> ​I'd like to ask: how many readers of ​
> ​this email have ever deliberately taken advantage of the limited 
> Python 3 scope in comprehensions and generator expressions to use what 
> would otherwise be a conflicting local variable name?​

I did:

for l in (l.rstrip() for l in f):

The provisional unstripped line variable is totally unneeded in the 
following code.

>
> I appreciate that the scope limitation can sidestep accidental naming 
> errors, which is a good thing.
>
> Unfortunately, unless we anticipate Python 4 (or whatever) also making 
> for loops have an implicit scope, I am left wondering whether it's not 
> too large a price to pay. After all, special cases aren't special 
> enough to break the rules, and unless the language is headed towards 
> implicit scope for all uses of "for" one could argue that the scope 
> limitation is a special case too far. It certainly threatens to be yet 
> another confusion for learners, and while that isn't the only 
> consideration, it should be given due weight.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/vano%40mail.mipt.ru

-- 
Regards,
Ivan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20180626/dbfc0e7d/attachment-0001.html>