pre-PEP: Suite-Based Keywords

[Ron_Adam]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:50:24 +0200, Reinhold Birkenfeld
<reinhold-birkenfeld-nospam at wolke7.net> wrote:

>y = (f(11, 22, x=1, y='y for f') *
>     g(*args_from_somewhere,
>       x='x for g', y='y for g',
>       foo=lambda: return 'foo for g'))
>
>would be my current way to express this. But still, the less lines,
>the less confusing it is.

I would probably do it this way.

y = f(11, 22, x=1, y='y for f') 		\
         * g( *args_from_somewhere,
              x='x for g', 
              y='y for g',
              foo=lambda: return 'foo for g' )

I tend to put the opperators on the left for continued lines. It's
nice visual que to whats happening.

if (a==1 
        or b==2 
        or c==3):
    x = ( 1.333333333333
      	+ the_last_value_i_needed
      	+ the_first_value_i_started_with
      	+ another_long_name_for_something )

This subject really hasn't been a problem for me. So I really don't
see the point of adding a new syntax. 

And this works on the def side.

def f( first, 
	   second,
	   x=0,
	   y='' ):
    #	
    # rest of body
    #

So is this new syntax just a way to keep the '()'s closer together?

Cheers,
Ron