Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   ari :prideified: (ar@is-a.cat)'s status on Wednesday, 07-Aug-2024 20:56:08 JST ari :prideified:

   both this

   def argv_transform(argv):
   for arg in argv:
   k, v = arg.split("=")
   yield k, v.split(",")
   

   and this:

   def argv_transform(argv):
   for arg in argv:
   k, v = arg.split("=")
   yield k, v.split(",")
   

   is valid (doesn't throw obvious errors) python code.
   tbqh, I would've expected k, v to be out of scope in the second example, and the function to throw an error.

   • Embed this notice
     nina (q66@blahaj.social)'s status on Wednesday, 07-Aug-2024 20:56:05 JST nina

     in reply to

     @ar i mean i can see where they wanted to go with it (doing it the way it is means... no need for a keyword for variables, no need to worry about block scoping, no need to worry about shadowing, simplified initialization semantics, etc.)

     but it still sucks sometimes

     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     ari :prideified: (ar@is-a.cat)'s status on Wednesday, 07-Aug-2024 20:56:07 JST ari :prideified:

     in reply to

     • nina

     @q66 yup, and this one was especially annoying as it was an artifact of moving code around (-> changing indentation) *and* still returned seemingly valid data

   • Embed this notice
     nina (q66@blahaj.social)'s status on Wednesday, 07-Aug-2024 20:56:08 JST nina

     in reply to

     @ar well the single crappiest thing about python that i dislike the most is that it does not actually have the concept of scope (beyond functions)

     having scope would also need some other things (such as variable declarations, which would also eliminate gross hacks like `nonlocal`)

     in the end i guess it's a tradeoff with the intent of reducing syntax noise, but it can lead to legit bugs