a = b = 1 just syntactic sugar?

[Mel Wilson]

In article <m33cikw4a0.fsf at mira.informatik.hu-berlin.de>,
martin at v.loewis.de (Martin v. =?iso-8859-15?q?L=F6wis?=) wrote:
>Ed Avis <ed at membled.com> writes:
>> So there is no reason to reject out of hand allowing one-line
>> statements in lambda just because such constructs may require
>> parenthesizing when used inside larger statements like 'print'.
>
>No, it is rejected because nobody has made a specification, yet, as to
>how exactly it should work. Only if a precise, detailed, complete, and
>implementable specification is made, it can be studied for undesired
>effects, and possibly be rejected.
>
>Actually, it doesn't need to be implementable - then we could reject
>it for not being implementable.

   Some statements, used in place of expressions, look
pretty strange:

    j = [global x for x in some_list]

    lambda x: del x

These are maybe in the territory of "expressions don't mess
with symbol binding".

        Regards.        Mel.