assignment statement method

• Python »
• 3.12.5 Documentation »
• The Python Language Reference »
• 7. Simple statements
• Theme Auto Light Dark |

7. Simple statements ¶

A simple statement is comprised within a single logical line. Several simple statements may occur on a single line separated by semicolons. The syntax for simple statements is:

7.1. Expression statements ¶

Expression statements are used (mostly interactively) to compute and write a value, or (usually) to call a procedure (a function that returns no meaningful result; in Python, procedures return the value None ). Other uses of expression statements are allowed and occasionally useful. The syntax for an expression statement is:

An expression statement evaluates the expression list (which may be a single expression).

In interactive mode, if the value is not None , it is converted to a string using the built-in repr() function and the resulting string is written to standard output on a line by itself (except if the result is None , so that procedure calls do not cause any output.)

7.2. Assignment statements ¶

Assignment statements are used to (re)bind names to values and to modify attributes or items of mutable objects:

(See section Primaries for the syntax definitions for attributeref , subscription , and slicing .)

An assignment statement evaluates the expression list (remember that this can be a single expression or a comma-separated list, the latter yielding a tuple) and assigns the single resulting object to each of the target lists, from left to right.

Assignment is defined recursively depending on the form of the target (list). When a target is part of a mutable object (an attribute reference, subscription or slicing), the mutable object must ultimately perform the assignment and decide about its validity, and may raise an exception if the assignment is unacceptable. The rules observed by various types and the exceptions raised are given with the definition of the object types (see section The standard type hierarchy ).

Assignment of an object to a target list, optionally enclosed in parentheses or square brackets, is recursively defined as follows.

If the target list is a single target with no trailing comma, optionally in parentheses, the object is assigned to that target.

If the target list contains one target prefixed with an asterisk, called a “starred” target: The object must be an iterable with at least as many items as there are targets in the target list, minus one. The first items of the iterable are assigned, from left to right, to the targets before the starred target. The final items of the iterable are assigned to the targets after the starred target. A list of the remaining items in the iterable is then assigned to the starred target (the list can be empty).

Else: The object must be an iterable with the same number of items as there are targets in the target list, and the items are assigned, from left to right, to the corresponding targets.

Assignment of an object to a single target is recursively defined as follows.

If the target is an identifier (name):

If the name does not occur in a global or nonlocal statement in the current code block: the name is bound to the object in the current local namespace.

Otherwise: the name is bound to the object in the global namespace or the outer namespace determined by nonlocal , respectively.

The name is rebound if it was already bound. This may cause the reference count for the object previously bound to the name to reach zero, causing the object to be deallocated and its destructor (if it has one) to be called.

If the target is an attribute reference: The primary expression in the reference is evaluated. It should yield an object with assignable attributes; if this is not the case, TypeError is raised. That object is then asked to assign the assigned object to the given attribute; if it cannot perform the assignment, it raises an exception (usually but not necessarily AttributeError ).

Note: If the object is a class instance and the attribute reference occurs on both sides of the assignment operator, the right-hand side expression, a.x can access either an instance attribute or (if no instance attribute exists) a class attribute. The left-hand side target a.x is always set as an instance attribute, creating it if necessary. Thus, the two occurrences of a.x do not necessarily refer to the same attribute: if the right-hand side expression refers to a class attribute, the left-hand side creates a new instance attribute as the target of the assignment:

This description does not necessarily apply to descriptor attributes, such as properties created with property() .

If the target is a subscription: The primary expression in the reference is evaluated. It should yield either a mutable sequence object (such as a list) or a mapping object (such as a dictionary). Next, the subscript expression is evaluated.

If the primary is a mutable sequence object (such as a list), the subscript must yield an integer. If it is negative, the sequence’s length is added to it. The resulting value must be a nonnegative integer less than the sequence’s length, and the sequence is asked to assign the assigned object to its item with that index. If the index is out of range, IndexError is raised (assignment to a subscripted sequence cannot add new items to a list).

If the primary is a mapping object (such as a dictionary), the subscript must have a type compatible with the mapping’s key type, and the mapping is then asked to create a key/value pair which maps the subscript to the assigned object. This can either replace an existing key/value pair with the same key value, or insert a new key/value pair (if no key with the same value existed).

For user-defined objects, the __setitem__() method is called with appropriate arguments.

If the target is a slicing: The primary expression in the reference is evaluated. It should yield a mutable sequence object (such as a list). The assigned object should be a sequence object of the same type. Next, the lower and upper bound expressions are evaluated, insofar they are present; defaults are zero and the sequence’s length. The bounds should evaluate to integers. If either bound is negative, the sequence’s length is added to it. The resulting bounds are clipped to lie between zero and the sequence’s length, inclusive. Finally, the sequence object is asked to replace the slice with the items of the assigned sequence. The length of the slice may be different from the length of the assigned sequence, thus changing the length of the target sequence, if the target sequence allows it.

CPython implementation detail: In the current implementation, the syntax for targets is taken to be the same as for expressions, and invalid syntax is rejected during the code generation phase, causing less detailed error messages.

Although the definition of assignment implies that overlaps between the left-hand side and the right-hand side are ‘simultaneous’ (for example a, b = b, a swaps two variables), overlaps within the collection of assigned-to variables occur left-to-right, sometimes resulting in confusion. For instance, the following program prints [0, 2] :

The specification for the *target feature.

7.2.1. Augmented assignment statements ¶

Augmented assignment is the combination, in a single statement, of a binary operation and an assignment statement:

(See section Primaries for the syntax definitions of the last three symbols.)

An augmented assignment evaluates the target (which, unlike normal assignment statements, cannot be an unpacking) and the expression list, performs the binary operation specific to the type of assignment on the two operands, and assigns the result to the original target. The target is only evaluated once.

An augmented assignment statement like x += 1 can be rewritten as x = x + 1 to achieve a similar, but not exactly equal effect. In the augmented version, x is only evaluated once. Also, when possible, the actual operation is performed in-place , meaning that rather than creating a new object and assigning that to the target, the old object is modified instead.

Unlike normal assignments, augmented assignments evaluate the left-hand side before evaluating the right-hand side. For example, a[i] += f(x) first looks-up a[i] , then it evaluates f(x) and performs the addition, and lastly, it writes the result back to a[i] .

With the exception of assigning to tuples and multiple targets in a single statement, the assignment done by augmented assignment statements is handled the same way as normal assignments. Similarly, with the exception of the possible in-place behavior, the binary operation performed by augmented assignment is the same as the normal binary operations.

For targets which are attribute references, the same caveat about class and instance attributes applies as for regular assignments.

7.2.2. Annotated assignment statements ¶

Annotation assignment is the combination, in a single statement, of a variable or attribute annotation and an optional assignment statement:

The difference from normal Assignment statements is that only a single target is allowed.

The assignment target is considered “simple” if it consists of a single name that is not enclosed in parentheses. For simple assignment targets, if in class or module scope, the annotations are evaluated and stored in a special class or module attribute __annotations__ that is a dictionary mapping from variable names (mangled if private) to evaluated annotations. This attribute is writable and is automatically created at the start of class or module body execution, if annotations are found statically.

If the assignment target is not simple (an attribute, subscript node, or parenthesized name), the annotation is evaluated if in class or module scope, but not stored.

If a name is annotated in a function scope, then this name is local for that scope. Annotations are never evaluated and stored in function scopes.

If the right hand side is present, an annotated assignment performs the actual assignment before evaluating annotations (where applicable). If the right hand side is not present for an expression target, then the interpreter evaluates the target except for the last __setitem__() or __setattr__() call.

The proposal that added syntax for annotating the types of variables (including class variables and instance variables), instead of expressing them through comments.

The proposal that added the typing module to provide a standard syntax for type annotations that can be used in static analysis tools and IDEs.

Changed in version 3.8: Now annotated assignments allow the same expressions in the right hand side as regular assignments. Previously, some expressions (like un-parenthesized tuple expressions) caused a syntax error.

7.3. The assert statement ¶

Assert statements are a convenient way to insert debugging assertions into a program:

The simple form, assert expression , is equivalent to

The extended form, assert expression1, expression2 , is equivalent to

These equivalences assume that __debug__ and AssertionError refer to the built-in variables with those names. In the current implementation, the built-in variable __debug__ is True under normal circumstances, False when optimization is requested (command line option -O ). The current code generator emits no code for an assert statement when optimization is requested at compile time. Note that it is unnecessary to include the source code for the expression that failed in the error message; it will be displayed as part of the stack trace.

Assignments to __debug__ are illegal. The value for the built-in variable is determined when the interpreter starts.

7.4. The pass statement ¶

pass is a null operation — when it is executed, nothing happens. It is useful as a placeholder when a statement is required syntactically, but no code needs to be executed, for example:

7.5. The del statement ¶

Deletion is recursively defined very similar to the way assignment is defined. Rather than spelling it out in full details, here are some hints.

Deletion of a target list recursively deletes each target, from left to right.

Deletion of a name removes the binding of that name from the local or global namespace, depending on whether the name occurs in a global statement in the same code block. If the name is unbound, a NameError exception will be raised.

Deletion of attribute references, subscriptions and slicings is passed to the primary object involved; deletion of a slicing is in general equivalent to assignment of an empty slice of the right type (but even this is determined by the sliced object).

Changed in version 3.2: Previously it was illegal to delete a name from the local namespace if it occurs as a free variable in a nested block.

7.6. The return statement ¶

return may only occur syntactically nested in a function definition, not within a nested class definition.

If an expression list is present, it is evaluated, else None is substituted.

return leaves the current function call with the expression list (or None ) as return value.

When return passes control out of a try statement with a finally clause, that finally clause is executed before really leaving the function.

In a generator function, the return statement indicates that the generator is done and will cause StopIteration to be raised. The returned value (if any) is used as an argument to construct StopIteration and becomes the StopIteration.value attribute.

In an asynchronous generator function, an empty return statement indicates that the asynchronous generator is done and will cause StopAsyncIteration to be raised. A non-empty return statement is a syntax error in an asynchronous generator function.

7.7. The yield statement ¶

A yield statement is semantically equivalent to a yield expression . The yield statement can be used to omit the parentheses that would otherwise be required in the equivalent yield expression statement. For example, the yield statements

are equivalent to the yield expression statements

Yield expressions and statements are only used when defining a generator function, and are only used in the body of the generator function. Using yield in a function definition is sufficient to cause that definition to create a generator function instead of a normal function.

For full details of yield semantics, refer to the Yield expressions section.

7.8. The raise statement ¶

If no expressions are present, raise re-raises the exception that is currently being handled, which is also known as the active exception . If there isn’t currently an active exception, a RuntimeError exception is raised indicating that this is an error.

Otherwise, raise evaluates the first expression as the exception object. It must be either a subclass or an instance of BaseException . If it is a class, the exception instance will be obtained when needed by instantiating the class with no arguments.

The type of the exception is the exception instance’s class, the value is the instance itself.

A traceback object is normally created automatically when an exception is raised and attached to it as the __traceback__ attribute. You can create an exception and set your own traceback in one step using the with_traceback() exception method (which returns the same exception instance, with its traceback set to its argument), like so:

The from clause is used for exception chaining: if given, the second expression must be another exception class or instance. If the second expression is an exception instance, it will be attached to the raised exception as the __cause__ attribute (which is writable). If the expression is an exception class, the class will be instantiated and the resulting exception instance will be attached to the raised exception as the __cause__ attribute. If the raised exception is not handled, both exceptions will be printed:

A similar mechanism works implicitly if a new exception is raised when an exception is already being handled. An exception may be handled when an except or finally clause, or a with statement, is used. The previous exception is then attached as the new exception’s __context__ attribute:

Exception chaining can be explicitly suppressed by specifying None in the from clause:

Additional information on exceptions can be found in section Exceptions , and information about handling exceptions is in section The try statement .

Changed in version 3.3: None is now permitted as Y in raise X from Y .

Added the __suppress_context__ attribute to suppress automatic display of the exception context.

Changed in version 3.11: If the traceback of the active exception is modified in an except clause, a subsequent raise statement re-raises the exception with the modified traceback. Previously, the exception was re-raised with the traceback it had when it was caught.

7.9. The break statement ¶

break may only occur syntactically nested in a for or while loop, but not nested in a function or class definition within that loop.

It terminates the nearest enclosing loop, skipping the optional else clause if the loop has one.

If a for loop is terminated by break , the loop control target keeps its current value.

When break passes control out of a try statement with a finally clause, that finally clause is executed before really leaving the loop.

7.10. The continue statement ¶

continue may only occur syntactically nested in a for or while loop, but not nested in a function or class definition within that loop. It continues with the next cycle of the nearest enclosing loop.

When continue passes control out of a try statement with a finally clause, that finally clause is executed before really starting the next loop cycle.

7.11. The import statement ¶

The basic import statement (no from clause) is executed in two steps:

find a module, loading and initializing it if necessary

define a name or names in the local namespace for the scope where the import statement occurs.

When the statement contains multiple clauses (separated by commas) the two steps are carried out separately for each clause, just as though the clauses had been separated out into individual import statements.

The details of the first step, finding and loading modules, are described in greater detail in the section on the import system , which also describes the various types of packages and modules that can be imported, as well as all the hooks that can be used to customize the import system. Note that failures in this step may indicate either that the module could not be located, or that an error occurred while initializing the module, which includes execution of the module’s code.

If the requested module is retrieved successfully, it will be made available in the local namespace in one of three ways:

If the module name is followed by as , then the name following as is bound directly to the imported module.

If no other name is specified, and the module being imported is a top level module, the module’s name is bound in the local namespace as a reference to the imported module

If the module being imported is not a top level module, then the name of the top level package that contains the module is bound in the local namespace as a reference to the top level package. The imported module must be accessed using its full qualified name rather than directly

The from form uses a slightly more complex process:

find the module specified in the from clause, loading and initializing it if necessary;

for each of the identifiers specified in the import clauses:

check if the imported module has an attribute by that name

if not, attempt to import a submodule with that name and then check the imported module again for that attribute

if the attribute is not found, ImportError is raised.

otherwise, a reference to that value is stored in the local namespace, using the name in the as clause if it is present, otherwise using the attribute name

If the list of identifiers is replaced by a star ( '*' ), all public names defined in the module are bound in the local namespace for the scope where the import statement occurs.

The public names defined by a module are determined by checking the module’s namespace for a variable named __all__ ; if defined, it must be a sequence of strings which are names defined or imported by that module. The names given in __all__ are all considered public and are required to exist. If __all__ is not defined, the set of public names includes all names found in the module’s namespace which do not begin with an underscore character ( '_' ). __all__ should contain the entire public API. It is intended to avoid accidentally exporting items that are not part of the API (such as library modules which were imported and used within the module).

The wild card form of import — from module import * — is only allowed at the module level. Attempting to use it in class or function definitions will raise a SyntaxError .

When specifying what module to import you do not have to specify the absolute name of the module. When a module or package is contained within another package it is possible to make a relative import within the same top package without having to mention the package name. By using leading dots in the specified module or package after from you can specify how high to traverse up the current package hierarchy without specifying exact names. One leading dot means the current package where the module making the import exists. Two dots means up one package level. Three dots is up two levels, etc. So if you execute from . import mod from a module in the pkg package then you will end up importing pkg.mod . If you execute from ..subpkg2 import mod from within pkg.subpkg1 you will import pkg.subpkg2.mod . The specification for relative imports is contained in the Package Relative Imports section.

importlib.import_module() is provided to support applications that determine dynamically the modules to be loaded.

Raises an auditing event import with arguments module , filename , sys.path , sys.meta_path , sys.path_hooks .

7.11.1. Future statements ¶

A future statement is a directive to the compiler that a particular module should be compiled using syntax or semantics that will be available in a specified future release of Python where the feature becomes standard.

The future statement is intended to ease migration to future versions of Python that introduce incompatible changes to the language. It allows use of the new features on a per-module basis before the release in which the feature becomes standard.

A future statement must appear near the top of the module. The only lines that can appear before a future statement are:

the module docstring (if any),

blank lines, and

other future statements.

The only feature that requires using the future statement is annotations (see PEP 563 ).

All historical features enabled by the future statement are still recognized by Python 3. The list includes absolute_import , division , generators , generator_stop , unicode_literals , print_function , nested_scopes and with_statement . They are all redundant because they are always enabled, and only kept for backwards compatibility.

A future statement is recognized and treated specially at compile time: Changes to the semantics of core constructs are often implemented by generating different code. It may even be the case that a new feature introduces new incompatible syntax (such as a new reserved word), in which case the compiler may need to parse the module differently. Such decisions cannot be pushed off until runtime.

For any given release, the compiler knows which feature names have been defined, and raises a compile-time error if a future statement contains a feature not known to it.

The direct runtime semantics are the same as for any import statement: there is a standard module __future__ , described later, and it will be imported in the usual way at the time the future statement is executed.

The interesting runtime semantics depend on the specific feature enabled by the future statement.

Note that there is nothing special about the statement:

That is not a future statement; it’s an ordinary import statement with no special semantics or syntax restrictions.

Code compiled by calls to the built-in functions exec() and compile() that occur in a module M containing a future statement will, by default, use the new syntax or semantics associated with the future statement. This can be controlled by optional arguments to compile() — see the documentation of that function for details.

A future statement typed at an interactive interpreter prompt will take effect for the rest of the interpreter session. If an interpreter is started with the -i option, is passed a script name to execute, and the script includes a future statement, it will be in effect in the interactive session started after the script is executed.

The original proposal for the __future__ mechanism.

7.12. The global statement ¶

The global statement is a declaration which holds for the entire current code block. It means that the listed identifiers are to be interpreted as globals. It would be impossible to assign to a global variable without global , although free variables may refer to globals without being declared global.

Names listed in a global statement must not be used in the same code block textually preceding that global statement.

Names listed in a global statement must not be defined as formal parameters, or as targets in with statements or except clauses, or in a for target list, class definition, function definition, import statement, or variable annotation.

CPython implementation detail: The current implementation does not enforce some of these restrictions, but programs should not abuse this freedom, as future implementations may enforce them or silently change the meaning of the program.

Programmer’s note: global is a directive to the parser. It applies only to code parsed at the same time as the global statement. In particular, a global statement contained in a string or code object supplied to the built-in exec() function does not affect the code block containing the function call, and code contained in such a string is unaffected by global statements in the code containing the function call. The same applies to the eval() and compile() functions.

7.13. The nonlocal statement ¶

When the definition of a function or class is nested (enclosed) within the definitions of other functions, its nonlocal scopes are the local scopes of the enclosing functions. The nonlocal statement causes the listed identifiers to refer to names previously bound in nonlocal scopes. It allows encapsulated code to rebind such nonlocal identifiers. If a name is bound in more than one nonlocal scope, the nearest binding is used. If a name is not bound in any nonlocal scope, or if there is no nonlocal scope, a SyntaxError is raised.

The nonlocal statement applies to the entire scope of a function or class body. A SyntaxError is raised if a variable is used or assigned to prior to its nonlocal declaration in the scope.

The specification for the nonlocal statement.

Programmer’s note: nonlocal is a directive to the parser and applies only to code parsed along with it. See the note for the global statement.

7.14. The type statement ¶

The type statement declares a type alias, which is an instance of typing.TypeAliasType .

For example, the following statement creates a type alias:

This code is roughly equivalent to:

annotation-def indicates an annotation scope , which behaves mostly like a function, but with several small differences.

The value of the type alias is evaluated in the annotation scope. It is not evaluated when the type alias is created, but only when the value is accessed through the type alias’s __value__ attribute (see Lazy evaluation ). This allows the type alias to refer to names that are not yet defined.

Type aliases may be made generic by adding a type parameter list after the name. See Generic type aliases for more.

type is a soft keyword .

Added in version 3.12.

Introduced the type statement and syntax for generic classes and functions.

Table of Contents

• 7.1. Expression statements
• 7.2.1. Augmented assignment statements
• 7.2.2. Annotated assignment statements
• 7.3. The assert statement
• 7.4. The pass statement
• 7.5. The del statement
• 7.6. The return statement
• 7.7. The yield statement
• 7.8. The raise statement
• 7.9. The break statement
• 7.10. The continue statement
• 7.11.1. Future statements
• 7.12. The global statement
• 7.13. The nonlocal statement
• 7.14. The type statement

Previous topic

6. Expressions

8. Compound statements

• Report a Bug
• Show Source

Python Numerical Methods

This notebook contains an excerpt from the Python Programming and Numerical Methods - A Guide for Engineers and Scientists , the content is also available at Berkeley Python Numerical Methods .

The copyright of the book belongs to Elsevier. We also have this interactive book online for a better learning experience. The code is released under the MIT license . If you find this content useful, please consider supporting the work on Elsevier or Amazon !

< 2.0 Variables and Basic Data Structures | Contents | 2.2 Data Structure - Strings >

Variables and Assignment ¶

When programming, it is useful to be able to store information in variables. A variable is a string of characters and numbers associated with a piece of information. The assignment operator , denoted by the “=” symbol, is the operator that is used to assign values to variables in Python. The line x=1 takes the known value, 1, and assigns that value to the variable with name “x”. After executing this line, this number will be stored into this variable. Until the value is changed or the variable deleted, the character x behaves like the value 1.

TRY IT! Assign the value 2 to the variable y. Multiply y by 3 to show that it behaves like the value 2.

A variable is more like a container to store the data in the computer’s memory, the name of the variable tells the computer where to find this value in the memory. For now, it is sufficient to know that the notebook has its own memory space to store all the variables in the notebook. As a result of the previous example, you will see the variable “x” and “y” in the memory. You can view a list of all the variables in the notebook using the magic command %whos .

TRY IT! List all the variables in this notebook

Note that the equal sign in programming is not the same as a truth statement in mathematics. In math, the statement x = 2 declares the universal truth within the given framework, x is 2 . In programming, the statement x=2 means a known value is being associated with a variable name, store 2 in x. Although it is perfectly valid to say 1 = x in mathematics, assignments in Python always go left : meaning the value to the right of the equal sign is assigned to the variable on the left of the equal sign. Therefore, 1=x will generate an error in Python. The assignment operator is always last in the order of operations relative to mathematical, logical, and comparison operators.

TRY IT! The mathematical statement x=x+1 has no solution for any value of x . In programming, if we initialize the value of x to be 1, then the statement makes perfect sense. It means, “Add x and 1, which is 2, then assign that value to the variable x”. Note that this operation overwrites the previous value stored in x .

There are some restrictions on the names variables can take. Variables can only contain alphanumeric characters (letters and numbers) as well as underscores. However, the first character of a variable name must be a letter or underscores. Spaces within a variable name are not permitted, and the variable names are case-sensitive (e.g., x and X will be considered different variables).

TIP! Unlike in pure mathematics, variables in programming almost always represent something tangible. It may be the distance between two points in space or the number of rabbits in a population. Therefore, as your code becomes increasingly complicated, it is very important that your variables carry a name that can easily be associated with what they represent. For example, the distance between two points in space is better represented by the variable dist than x , and the number of rabbits in a population is better represented by nRabbits than y .

Note that when a variable is assigned, it has no memory of how it was assigned. That is, if the value of a variable, y , is constructed from other variables, like x , reassigning the value of x will not change the value of y .

EXAMPLE: What value will y have after the following lines of code are executed?

WARNING! You can overwrite variables or functions that have been stored in Python. For example, the command help = 2 will store the value 2 in the variable with name help . After this assignment help will behave like the value 2 instead of the function help . Therefore, you should always be careful not to give your variables the same name as built-in functions or values.

TIP! Now that you know how to assign variables, it is important that you learn to never leave unassigned commands. An unassigned command is an operation that has a result, but that result is not assigned to a variable. For example, you should never use 2+2 . You should instead assign it to some variable x=2+2 . This allows you to “hold on” to the results of previous commands and will make your interaction with Python must less confusing.

You can clear a variable from the notebook using the del function. Typing del x will clear the variable x from the workspace. If you want to remove all the variables in the notebook, you can use the magic command %reset .

In mathematics, variables are usually associated with unknown numbers; in programming, variables are associated with a value of a certain type. There are many data types that can be assigned to variables. A data type is a classification of the type of information that is being stored in a variable. The basic data types that you will utilize throughout this book are boolean, int, float, string, list, tuple, dictionary, set. A formal description of these data types is given in the following sections.

Learning Python by doing

• suggest edit

Variables, Expressions, and Assignments

Variables, expressions, and assignments 1 #, introduction #.

In this chapter, we introduce some of the main building blocks needed to create programs–that is, variables, expressions, and assignments. Programming related variables can be intepret in the same way that we interpret mathematical variables, as elements that store values that can later be changed. Usually, variables and values are used within the so-called expressions. Once again, just as in mathematics, an expression is a construct of values and variables connected with operators that result in a new value. Lastly, an assignment is a language construct know as an statement that assign a value (either as a constant or expression) to a variable. The rest of this notebook will dive into the main concepts that we need to fully understand these three language constructs.

Values and Types #

A value is the basic unit used in a program. It may be, for instance, a number respresenting temperature. It may be a string representing a word. Some values are 42, 42.0, and ‘Hello, Data Scientists!’.

Each value has its own type : 42 is an integer ( int in Python), 42.0 is a floating-point number ( float in Python), and ‘Hello, Data Scientists!’ is a string ( str in Python).

The Python interpreter can tell you the type of a value: the function type takes a value as argument and returns its corresponding type.

Observe the difference between type(42) and type('42') !

Expressions and Statements #

On the one hand, an expression is a combination of values, variables, and operators.

A value all by itself is considered an expression, and so is a variable.

When you type an expression at the prompt, the interpreter evaluates it, which means that it calculates the value of the expression and displays it.

In boxes above, m has the value 27 and m + 25 has the value 52 . m + 25 is said to be an expression.

On the other hand, a statement is an instruction that has an effect, like creating a variable or displaying a value.

The first statement initializes the variable n with the value 17 , this is a so-called assignment statement .

The second statement is a print statement that prints the value of the variable n .

The effect is not always visible. Assigning a value to a variable is not visible, but printing the value of a variable is.

Assignment Statements #

We have already seen that Python allows you to evaluate expressions, for instance 40 + 2 . It is very convenient if we are able to store the calculated value in some variable for future use. The latter can be done via an assignment statement. An assignment statement creates a new variable with a given name and assigns it a value.

The example in the previous code contains three assignments. The first one assigns the value of the expression 40 + 2 to a new variable called magicnumber ; the second one assigns the value of π to the variable pi , and; the last assignment assigns the string value 'Data is eatig the world' to the variable message .

Programmers generally choose names for their variables that are meaningful. In this way, they document what the variable is used for.

Do It Yourself!

Let’s compute the volume of a cube with side \(s = 5\) . Remember that the volume of a cube is defined as \(v = s^3\) . Assign the value to a variable called volume .

Well done! Now, why don’t you print the result in a message? It can say something like “The volume of the cube with side 5 is \(volume\) ”.

Beware that there is no checking of types ( type checking ) in Python, so a variable to which you have assigned an integer may be re-used as a float, even if we provide type-hints .

Names and Keywords #

Names of variable and other language constructs such as functions (we will cover this topic later), should be meaningful and reflect the purpose of the construct.

In general, Python names should adhere to the following rules:

It should start with a letter or underscore.

It cannot start with a number.

It must only contain alpha-numeric (i.e., letters a-z A-Z and digits 0-9) characters and underscores.

They cannot share the name of a Python keyword.

If you use illegal variable names you will get a syntax error.

By choosing the right variables names you make the code self-documenting, what is better the variable v or velocity ?

The following are examples of invalid variable names.

These basic development principles are sometimes called architectural rules . By defining and agreeing upon architectural rules you make it easier for you and your fellow developers to understand and modify your code.

If you want to read more on this, please have a look at Code complete a book by Steven McConnell [ McC04 ] .

Every programming language has a collection of reserved keywords . They are used in predefined language constructs, such as loops and conditionals . These language concepts and their usage will be explained later.

The interpreter uses keywords to recognize these language constructs in a program. Python 3 has the following keywords:

False class finally is return

None continue for lambda try

True def from nonlocal while

and del global not with

as elif if or yield

assert else import pass break

except in raise

Reassignments #

It is allowed to assign a new value to an existing variable. This process is called reassignment . As soon as you assign a value to a variable, the old value is lost.

The assignment of a variable to another variable, for instance b = a does not imply that if a is reassigned then b changes as well.

You have a variable salary that shows the weekly salary of an employee. However, you want to compute the monthly salary. Can you reassign the value to the salary variable according to the instruction?

Updating Variables #

A frequently used reassignment is for updating puposes: the value of a variable depends on the previous value of the variable.

This statement expresses “get the current value of x , add one, and then update x with the new value.”

Beware, that the variable should be initialized first, usually with a simple assignment.

Do you remember the salary excercise of the previous section (cf. 13. Reassignments)? Well, if you have not done it yet, update the salary variable by using its previous value.

Updating a variable by adding 1 is called an increment ; subtracting 1 is called a decrement . A shorthand way of doing is using += and -= , which stands for x = x + ... and x = x - ... respectively.

Order of Operations #

Expressions may contain multiple operators. The order of evaluation depends on the priorities of the operators also known as rules of precedence .

For mathematical operators, Python follows mathematical convention. The acronym PEMDAS is a useful way to remember the rules:

Parentheses have the highest precedence and can be used to force an expression to evaluate in the order you want. Since expressions in parentheses are evaluated first, 2 * (3 - 1) is 4 , and (1 + 1)**(5 - 2) is 8 . You can also use parentheses to make an expression easier to read, even if it does not change the result.

Exponentiation has the next highest precedence, so 1 + 2**3 is 9 , not 27 , and 2 * 3**2 is 18 , not 36 .

Multiplication and division have higher precedence than addition and subtraction . So 2 * 3 - 1 is 5 , not 4 , and 6 + 4 / 2 is 8 , not 5 .

Operators with the same precedence are evaluated from left to right (except exponentiation). So in the expression degrees / 2 * pi , the division happens first and the result is multiplied by pi . To divide by 2π, you can use parentheses or write: degrees / 2 / pi .

In case of doubt, use parentheses!

Let’s see what happens when we evaluate the following expressions. Just run the cell to check the resulting value.

Floor Division and Modulus Operators #

The floor division operator // divides two numbers and rounds down to an integer.

For example, suppose that driving to the south of France takes 555 minutes. You might want to know how long that is in hours.

Conventional division returns a floating-point number.

Hours are normally not represented with decimal points. Floor division returns the integer number of hours, dropping the fraction part.

You spend around 225 minutes every week on programming activities. You want to know around how many hours you invest to this activity during a month. Use the \(//\) operator to give the answer.

The modulus operator % works on integer values. It computes the remainder when dividing the first integer by the second one.

The modulus operator is more useful than it seems.

For example, you can check whether one number is divisible by another—if x % y is zero, then x is divisible by y .

String Operations #

In general, you cannot perform mathematical operations on strings, even if the strings look like numbers, so the following operations are illegal: '2'-'1' 'eggs'/'easy' 'third'*'a charm'

But there are two exceptions, + and * .

The + operator performs string concatenation, which means it joins the strings by linking them end-to-end.

The * operator also works on strings; it performs repetition.

Speedy Gonzales is a cartoon known to be the fastest mouse in all Mexico . He is also famous for saying “Arriba Arriba Andale Arriba Arriba Yepa”. Can you use the following variables, namely arriba , andale and yepa to print the mentioned expression? Don’t forget to use the string operators.

Asking the User for Input #

The programs we have written so far accept no input from the user.

To get data from the user through the Python prompt, we can use the built-in function input .

When input is called your whole program stops and waits for the user to enter the required data. Once the user types the value and presses Return or Enter , the function returns the input value as a string and the program continues with its execution.

Try it out!

You can also print a message to clarify the purpose of the required input as follows.

The resulting string can later be translated to a different type, like an integer or a float. To do so, you use the functions int and float , respectively. But be careful, the user might introduce a value that cannot be converted to the type you required.

We want to know the name of a user so we can display a welcome message in our program. The message should say something like “Hello \(name\) , welcome to our hello world program!”.

Script Mode #

So far we have run Python in interactive mode in these Jupyter notebooks, which means that you interact directly with the interpreter in the code cells . The interactive mode is a good way to get started, but if you are working with more than a few lines of code, it can be clumsy. The alternative is to save code in a file called a script and then run the interpreter in script mode to execute the script. By convention, Python scripts have names that end with .py .

Use the PyCharm icon in Anaconda Navigator to create and execute stand-alone Python scripts. Later in the course, you will have to work with Python projects for the assignments, in order to get acquainted with another way of interacing with Python code.

This Jupyter Notebook is based on Chapter 2 of the books Python for Everybody [ Sev16 ] and Think Python (Sections 5.1, 7.1, 7.2, and 5.12) [ Dow15 ] .

Python Tutorial

File handling, python modules, python numpy, python pandas, python matplotlib, python scipy, machine learning, python mysql, python mongodb, python reference, module reference, python how to, python examples, python assignment operators.

Assignment operators are used to assign values to variables:

Related Pages

COLOR PICKER

Contact Sales

If you want to use W3Schools services as an educational institution, team or enterprise, send us an e-mail: [email protected]

Report Error

If you want to report an error, or if you want to make a suggestion, send us an e-mail: [email protected]

Top Tutorials

Top references, top examples, get certified.

Join us and get access to thousands of tutorials and a community of expert Pythonistas.

This lesson is for members only. Join us and get access to thousands of tutorials and a community of expert Pythonistas.

Assignment in Python

00:00 Since Python’s argument passing mechanism relies so much on how Python deals with assignment, the next couple of lessons will go into a bit more depth about how assignment works in Python.

00:12 Recall some things I’ve already mentioned: Assignment is the process of binding a name to an object. Parameter names are also bound to objects on function entry in Python. And again, this is how Python’s argument passing mechanism gets its name.

00:29 But how exactly does that work?

00:33 Let’s take a closer look.

00:36 In other languages like C++, assignment is quite simple, especially for basic types. In the first statement, a space of memory which has been designated for the variable x has the value 5 stored in it.

00:51 Then, in that second statement, that same piece of memory is overwritten with the value of 10 , and the value 5 is lost completely.

01:01 Python works much differently. In the first statement, an object representing the number 5 is created, if one doesn’t already exist, and then x is made to refer— or we sometimes say “point”—to that object, basically by storing the memory address to where the object 5 is stored.

01:21 In the second statement, x is reassigned to refer to an object representing the value 10 . Again, if one didn’t already exist, one is created.

01:31 In other words, x is rebound to a new object. The object representing 5 may still exist because there could be other variables or names referring to that object.

01:42 Let’s look at this process in more detail. There’s a particular structure used to implement objects in Python. A reference counter keeps track of how many references a specific object has. So again, in the statement x = 5 , an object representing the value 5 is found or created, the reference counter for that object is incremented, and an entry is made binding that variable name to the object.

02:14 This is basically done in a dictionary, and depending on the namespace of the variable, it can be found using either the locals() or globals() function.

02:26 Then, when x is reassigned to the value 10 , the reference count for the object representing 5 is reduced by one, the reference counter for the object representing 10 is increased by one, and finally, the appropriate dictionary is updated to indicate that x is now bound to that new object 10 . To see this happen, you can write a small program which uses the sys.getrefcount() function.

02:54 This function takes an object as an argument and returns the number of references to it. Here is an example. It will track the number of references to two objects, cleverly named "value_1" and "value_2" . First, it displays the number of references to each object before either are assigned to a variable.

03:20 Then it assigns x to be bound to the "value_1" . It repeats calls to getrefcount() to see how the counts have been changed as a result of that assignment statement.

03:33 Then it reassigns x from "value_1" to "value_2" and displays the ref counts again. Let’s try this out.

03:48 Well, that’s interesting! Before either object is bound to x , they each already have three references. Why is that? Well, one is an internal reference to the object when it was created.

04:01 Python has to know where it is so it can be bound to something else as the program runs. Second, it’s being used as an argument to this function call, so there’s a reference. And it’s used in the parameter variable inside getrefcount() .

04:17 So you likely always get a count of at least 3 for any object you try. The point to notice is that once x was assigned to be "value_1" , the ref count for "value_1" was incremented.

04:32 Then when x was reassigned to "value_2" , the ref count for "value_1" went back down to 3 and the ref count for "value_2" increased to 4 .

04:44 So, you can see the ref counts are going up and down as objects are bound and unbound to the variable x .

04:54 Next, you’ll see how this notion of assignments and bindings works with function arguments.

Become a Member to join the conversation.

Assignment Statements

Learn about assignment statements in Python.

• Assignment shortcuts
• Walrus operator

Assignment statements consist of a variable , an equal sign, and an expression .

Here’s an example:

Get hands-on with 1200+ tech skills courses.

• Stack Overflow for Teams Where developers & technologists share private knowledge with coworkers
• Advertising & Talent Reach devs & technologists worldwide about your product, service or employer brand
• OverflowAI GenAI features for Teams
• OverflowAPI Train & fine-tune LLMs
• Labs The future of collective knowledge sharing
• About the company Visit the blog

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Find centralized, trusted content and collaborate around the technologies you use most.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Get early access and see previews of new features.

Why do assignment statements return a value?

This is allowed:

To my understanding, assignment s = ”Hello”; should only cause “Hello” to be assigned to s , but the operation shouldn’t return any value. If that was true, then ((s = "Hello") != null) would produce an error, since null would be compared to nothing.

What is the reasoning behind allowing assignment statements to return a value?

• 49 For reference, this behavior is defined in the C# spec : "The result of a simple assignment expression is the value assigned to the left operand. The result has the same type as the left operand and is always classified as a value." –  Michael Petrotta Commented Sep 27, 2010 at 19:41
• 1 @Skurmedel I am not the downvoter, I agree with you. But maybe because it was thought to be a rhetorical question? –  jsmith Commented Sep 27, 2010 at 19:48
• 1 In pascal/delphi assignment := returns nothing. i hate it. –  Andrey Commented Sep 27, 2010 at 19:51
• 20 Standard for languages in the C branch. Assignments are expressions. –  Hans Passant Commented Sep 27, 2010 at 19:52
• "assignment ... should only cause “Hello” to be assigned to s, but the operation shouldn’t return any value" -- Why? "What is the reasoning behind allowing assignment statements to return a value?" -- Because it's useful, as your own examples demonstrate. (Well, your second example is silly, but while ((s = GetWord()) != null) Process(s); is not). –  Jim Balter Commented Jul 23, 2015 at 21:40

14 Answers 14

To my understanding, assignment s = "Hello"; should only cause "Hello" to be assigned to s, but the operation shouldn’t return any value.

Your understanding is 100% incorrect. Can you explain why you believe this false thing?

First off, assignment statements do not produce a value. Assignment expressions produce a value. An assignment expression is a legal statement; there are only a handful of expressions which are legal statements in C#: awaits of an expression, instance construction, increment, decrement, invocation and assignment expressions may be used where a statement is expected.

There is only one kind of expression in C# which does not produce some sort of value, namely, an invocation of something that is typed as returning void. (Or, equivalently, an await of a task with no associated result value.) Every other kind of expression produces a value or variable or reference or property access or event access, and so on.

Notice that all the expressions which are legal as statements are useful for their side effects . That's the key insight here, and I think perhaps the cause of your intuition that assignments should be statements and not expressions. Ideally, we'd have exactly one side effect per statement, and no side effects in an expression. It is a bit odd that side-effecting code can be used in an expression context at all.

The reasoning behind allowing this feature is because (1) it is frequently convenient and (2) it is idiomatic in C-like languages.

One might note that the question has been begged: why is this idiomatic in C-like languages?

Dennis Ritchie is no longer available to ask, unfortunately, but my guess is that an assignment almost always leaves behind the value that was just assigned in a register. C is a very "close to the machine" sort of language. It seems plausible and in keeping with the design of C that there be a language feature which basically means "keep on using the value that I just assigned". It is very easy to write a code generator for this feature; you just keep on using the register that stored the value that was assigned.

• 1 Wasn't aware that anything which returns a value ( even instance construction is considered an expression ) –  user437291 Commented Sep 27, 2010 at 20:56
• 9 @user437291: If instance construction wasn’t an expression, you couldn’t do anything with the constructed object — you couldn’t assign it to something, you couldn’t pass it into a method, and you couldn’t call any methods on it. Would be pretty useless, wouldn’t it? –  Timwi Commented Sep 27, 2010 at 22:45
• 1 Changing a variable is actually "just" a side effect of the assignment operator, which, creating an expression, yields a value as its primary purpose. –  mk12 Commented Aug 24, 2012 at 22:08
• 2 "Your understanding is 100% incorrect." -- While the OP's use of English isn't the greatest, his/her "understanding" is about what should be the case, making it an opinion, so it isn't the sort of thing than can be "100% incorrect". Some language designers agree with the OP's "should", and make assignments have no value or otherwise ban them from being subexpressions. I think that's an overreaction to the = / == typo, which is easily addressed by disallowing using the value of = unless it is parenthesed. e.g., if ((x = y)) or if ((x = y) == true) is allowed but if (x = y) is not. –  Jim Balter Commented Jul 23, 2015 at 21:01
• 1 @BobKaufman: Fun fact, JavaScript still does that . Never do this, but in JavaScript you can say x=eval("if(whatever)y=2; else z=3;"); and x will be either 2 or 3 . eval is pure unmitigated evil . –  Eric Lippert Commented Aug 29, 2018 at 18:55

Haven’t you provided the answer? It’s to enable exactly the kinds of constructs you have mentioned.

A common case where this property of the assignment operator is used is reading lines from a file...

• 1 +1 This has to be one of the most practical uses of this construct –  Mike Burton Commented Sep 27, 2010 at 20:40
• 13 I really like it for really simple property initializers, but you have to be careful and draw your line for "simple" low for readability: return _myBackingField ?? (_myBackingField = CalculateBackingField()); A lot less chaff than checking for null and assigning. –  Tom Mayfield Commented Sep 27, 2010 at 22:02

My favorite use of assignment expressions is for lazily initialized properties.

• 6 Which is why so many people have suggested the ??= syntax. –  configurator Commented Sep 10, 2011 at 19:39
• 2 Now that ??= is there, you can still use it with an assignment expression, makes it even easier: public string Name => this.name ??= ExpensiveNameGeneratorMethod(); –  jsabrooke Commented Oct 14, 2020 at 8:52
• Sad that ??= is only available for .NET Core :( –  Alex from Jitbit Commented Mar 29, 2021 at 10:29

For one, it allows you to chain your assignments, as in your example:

For another, it allows you to assign and check a result in a single expression:

Both are possibly dubious reasons, but there are definitely people who like these constructs.

• 6 +1 Chaining isn't a critical feature but it's nice to see it "just works" when so many things don't. –  Mike Burton Commented Sep 27, 2010 at 20:41
• +1 for chaining also; I'd always thought of that as a special case that was handled by the language rather than the natural side effect of "expressions return values". –  Caleb Bell Commented Nov 30, 2011 at 17:59
• 2 It also allows you to use assignment in returns: return (HttpContext.Current.Items["x"] = myvar); –  Serge Shultz Commented Mar 12, 2013 at 9:48

Aside from the reasons already mentioned (assignment chaining, set-and-test within while loops, etc), to properly use the using statement you need this feature:

MSDN discourages declaring the disposable object outside of the using statement, as it will then remain in scope even after it has been disposed (see the MSDN article I linked).

• 4 I don't think this is really assignment chaining per se. –  kenny Commented Sep 27, 2010 at 20:53
• 1 @kenny: Uh... No, but I never claimed it was, either. As I said, aside from the reasons already mentioned -- which includes assignment chaining -- the using statement would be a lot more difficult to use were it not for the fact that the assignment operator returns the result of the assignment operation. This isn't really related to assignment chaining at all. –  Martin Törnwall Commented Sep 27, 2010 at 21:32
• 1 But as Eric noted above, "assignment statements do not return a value". This is actually just language syntax of the using statement, proof to that is that one can't use an "assignment expression" in a using statement. –  kenny Commented Sep 27, 2010 at 22:31
• 2 @kenny: Actually, one can use either a definition-and-assignment statement, or any expression in using . All of these are legal: using (X x = new X()) , using (x = new X()) , using (x) . However, in this example, the contents of the using statement is a special syntax that doesn't rely at all on assignment returning a value - Font font3 = new Font("Arial", 10.0f) is not an expression and is not valid in any place that expects expressions. –  configurator Commented Sep 10, 2011 at 19:37
• 1 " to properly use the using statement you need this feature" -- No, you most certainly do not. "without the language having general support for assignment expressions returning a value" -- why are you talking about assignment expressions? This is a variable definition with an initializer -- which is not an expression. "That would, in my eyes, be terribly inconsistent though." -- Your example of using (definition) completely contradicts you ... there's nowhere else such a construction can be used. –  Jim Balter Commented Jul 23, 2015 at 21:18

I'd like to elaborate on a specific point Eric Lippert made in his answer and put the spotlight on a particular occasion that hasn't at all been touched upon by anyone else. Eric said:

[...] an assignment almost always leaves behind the value that was just assigned in a register.

I'd like to say that the assignment will always leave behind the value we tried to assign to our left operand. Not just "almost always". But I don't know because I haven't found this issue commented in the documentation. It might theoretically be a very effective implemented procedure to "leave behind" and not reevaluate the left operand, but is it efficient?

'Efficient' yes for all the examples so far constructed in the answers of this thread. But efficient in the case of properties and indexers that use get- and set accessors? Not at all. Consider this code:

Here we have a property, which isn't even a wrapper for a private variable. Whenever called upon he shall return true, whenever one tries to set his value he shall do nothing. Thus whenever this property is evaluated, he shall be truthy. Let's see what happens:

Guess what it prints? It prints Unexpected!! . As it turns out, the set accessor is indeed called, which does nothing. But thereafter, the get accessor is never called at all. The assignment simply leaves behind the false value we tried to assign to our property. And this false value is what the if statement evaluates.

I'll finish off with a real world example that got me researching this issue. I made an indexer which was a convenient wrapper for a collection ( List<string> ) that a class of mine had as a private variable.

The parameter sent to the indexer was a string, which was to be treated as a value in my collection. The get accessor would simply return true or false if that value existed in the list or not. Thus the get accessor was another way to use the List<T>.Contains method.

If the indexer's set accessor was called with a string as an argument and the right operand was a bool true , he would add that parameter to the list. But if the same parameter was sent to the accessor and the right operand was a bool false , he would instead delete the element from the list. Thus the set accessor was used as a convenient alternative to both List<T>.Add and List<T>.Remove .

I thought I had a neat and compact "API" wrapping the list with my own logic implemented as a gateway. With the help of an indexer alone I could do many things with a few set of keystrokes. For instance, how can I try to add a value to my list and verify that it's in there? I thought this was the only line of code necessary:

But as my earlier example showed, the get accessor which is supposed to see if the value really is in the list wasn't even called. The true value was always left behind effectively destroying whatever logic I had implemented in my get accessor.

• Very interesting answer. And it's made me think positively about test-driven development. –  Elliot Commented Feb 12, 2015 at 15:04
• 1 While this is interesting, it's a comment upon Eric's answer, not an answer to the OP's question. –  Jim Balter Commented Jul 23, 2015 at 21:25
• 1 I wouldn't expect an attempted assignment expression to first get the value of the target property. If the variable is mutable, and the types match, why would it matter what the old value was? Just set the new value. I'm not a fan of assignment in IF tests though. Is it returning true because the assignment was successful, or it's some value e.g. a positive integer that is coerced to true, or because you are assigning a boolean? Regardless of the implementation, the logic is ambiguous. –  Davos Commented Sep 1, 2016 at 11:42

If assignment didn't return a value, the line a = b = c = 16 wouldn't work either.

Also being able to write things like while ((s = readLine()) != null) can be useful sometimes.

So the reason behind letting assignment return the assigned value, is to let you do those things.

• Nobody's mentioned disadvantages - I came here wondering why assignments couldn't return null, in order that the common assignment vs comparison bug 'if (something = 1){}' would fail to compile rather than always returning true. I now see that that would create... other issues! –  Jon Commented Mar 11, 2014 at 15:35
• 1 @Jon that bug could be easily prevented by disallowing or warning about = occurring in an expression that isn't parenthesized (not counting the parens of the if/while statement itself). gcc gives such warnings and has thereby essentially eliminated this class of bugs from C/C++ programs that are compiled with it. It's a shame that other compiler writers have paid so little attention to this and several other good ideas in gcc. –  Jim Balter Commented Jul 23, 2015 at 21:10

I think you're misunderstanding how the parser is going to interpret that syntax. The assignment will be evaluated first , and the result will then be compared to NULL, i.e. the statement is equivalent to:

As others have pointed out, the result of an assignment is the assigned value. I find it hard to imagine the advantage to having

((s = "Hello") != null)

not be equivalent...

• While you are right from a practical sense that your two lines are equivalent your statement that the assignment is not returning a value is not technically true. My understanding is that the result of an assignment is a value (per the C# spec), and in that sense is no different from say the addition operator in an expression like 1 + 2 + 3 –  Steve Ellinger Commented Sep 27, 2010 at 20:25

I think the main reason is the (intentional) similarity with C++ and C. Making the assigment operator (and a lot of other language constructs) behave like their C++ counterparts just follows the principle of least surprise, and any programmer coming from another curly-bracket language can use them without spending much thought. Being easy to pick up for C++ programmers was one of the main design goals for C#.

For the two reasons you include in your post 1) so you can do a = b = c = 16 2) so you can test if an assignment succeeded if ((s = openSomeHandle()) != null)

The fact that 'a++' or 'printf("foo")' may be useful either as a self-contained statement or as a part of a larger expression means that C has to allow for the possibility that expression results may or may not be used. Given that, there's a general notion that expressions which might usefully 'return' a value may as well do so. Assignment chaining can be slightly "interesting" in C, and even more interesting in C++, if all the variables in question do not have precisely the same type. Such usages are probably best avoided.

An extra advantage I don't see given in the answers here, is that the syntax for assignment is based on arithmetic.

Now x = y = b = c = 2 + 3 means something different in arithmetic than a C-style language; in arithmetic its an assertion, we state that x is equal to y etc. and in a C-style language it's an instruction that makes x equal to y etc. after it is executed.

This said, there's still enough relation between the arithmetic and the code that it doesn't make sense to disallow what is natural in the arithmetic unless there's a good reason. (The other thing that C-style languages took from the use of the equals symbol is the use of == for equality comparison. Here though because the right-most == returns a value this sort of chaining would be impossible.)

• @JimBalter I wonder whether, in five years time, you might actually make an argument against. –  Jon Hanna Commented Jul 23, 2015 at 21:27
• @JimBalter no, your second comment is actually a counter argument, and a sound one. My thinking retort was because your first comment was not. Still, when learning arithmetic we learn a = b = c means that a and b and c are the same thing. When learning a C style language we learn that after a = b = c , a and b are the same thing as c . There's certainly a difference in semantics, as my answer itself says, but still when as a child I first learned to program in a language which did use = for assignment but didn't allow a = b = c this seemed unreasonable to me, though … –  Jon Hanna Commented Jul 23, 2015 at 22:01
• … unavoidable because that language also used = for equality comparison, so in that a = b = c would have to mean what a = b == c means in C-style languages. I found the chaining allowed in C a lot more intuitive because I could draw an analogy to arithmetic. –  Jon Hanna Commented Jul 23, 2015 at 22:04

Another great example use-case, I use this all the time:

I like using the assignment return value when I need to update a bunch of stuff and return whether or not there were any changes:

Be careful though. You might think you can shorten it to this:

But this will actually stop evaluating the or statements after it finds the first true. In this case that means it stops assigning subsequent values once it assigns the first value that is different.

See https://dotnetfiddle.net/e05Rh8 to play around with this

Your Answer

Reminder: Answers generated by artificial intelligence tools are not allowed on Stack Overflow. Learn more

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest.

Required, but never shown

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy .

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged c# syntax or ask your own question .

• The Overflow Blog
• From PHP to JavaScript to Kubernetes: how one backend engineer evolved over time
• Featured on Meta
• We've made changes to our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy - July 2024
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• What does a new user need in a homepage experience on Stack Overflow?
• Feedback requested: How do you use tag hover descriptions for curating and do...

Hot Network Questions

• Rotating disc and current?
• Meaning of capacitor "× 2" symbol on data sheet schematic
• what parts of a radicchio plant are edible
• Why cant we save the heat rejected in a heat engine?
• Video game where the hero gets transported to another world with his sister to aid a king in a war
• Name of engineering civil construction device for flattening tarmac
• Group automorphism fixing finite-index subgroup
• Miracle Miracle Octad Generator Generator
• What's the counterpart to "spheroid" for a circle? There's no "circoid"
• When a submarine blows its ballast and rises, where did the energy for the ascent come from?
• Is there racial discrimination at Tbilisi airport?
• Book about a colony ship making an unscheduled stop in a star system with no habitable planets
• Working on a Homework Question I Encountered Before Taking the Course
• Picture inside the proof environment
• Op Amp Feedback Resistors
• How to determine if a set is countable or uncountable?
• How does one go about writing papers as a nobody?
• Should I GFCI-protect a bathroom light and fan?
• What does "close" mean in the phrase: "close a tooth pick between the jamb and the door"?
• Why are volumes of revolution typically taught in Calculus 2 and not Calculus 3?
• NSum result quite different from Sum. Euler Maclaurin won‘t work!
• How do I input box-drawing characters?
• Reduce String Length With Thread Safety & Concurrency
• Are Experimental Elixirs Magic Items?

Python Enhancement Proposals

• Python »
• PEP Index »

PEP 572 – Assignment Expressions

The importance of real code, exceptional cases, scope of the target, relative precedence of :=, change to evaluation order, differences between assignment expressions and assignment statements, specification changes during implementation, _pydecimal.py, datetime.py, sysconfig.py, simplifying list comprehensions, capturing condition values, changing the scope rules for comprehensions, alternative spellings, special-casing conditional statements, special-casing comprehensions, lowering operator precedence, allowing commas to the right, always requiring parentheses, why not just turn existing assignment into an expression, with assignment expressions, why bother with assignment statements, why not use a sublocal scope and prevent namespace pollution, style guide recommendations, acknowledgements, a numeric example, appendix b: rough code translations for comprehensions, appendix c: no changes to scope semantics.

This is a proposal for creating a way to assign to variables within an expression using the notation NAME := expr .

As part of this change, there is also an update to dictionary comprehension evaluation order to ensure key expressions are executed before value expressions (allowing the key to be bound to a name and then re-used as part of calculating the corresponding value).

During discussion of this PEP, the operator became informally known as “the walrus operator”. The construct’s formal name is “Assignment Expressions” (as per the PEP title), but they may also be referred to as “Named Expressions” (e.g. the CPython reference implementation uses that name internally).

Naming the result of an expression is an important part of programming, allowing a descriptive name to be used in place of a longer expression, and permitting reuse. Currently, this feature is available only in statement form, making it unavailable in list comprehensions and other expression contexts.

Additionally, naming sub-parts of a large expression can assist an interactive debugger, providing useful display hooks and partial results. Without a way to capture sub-expressions inline, this would require refactoring of the original code; with assignment expressions, this merely requires the insertion of a few name := markers. Removing the need to refactor reduces the likelihood that the code be inadvertently changed as part of debugging (a common cause of Heisenbugs), and is easier to dictate to another programmer.

During the development of this PEP many people (supporters and critics both) have had a tendency to focus on toy examples on the one hand, and on overly complex examples on the other.

The danger of toy examples is twofold: they are often too abstract to make anyone go “ooh, that’s compelling”, and they are easily refuted with “I would never write it that way anyway”.

The danger of overly complex examples is that they provide a convenient strawman for critics of the proposal to shoot down (“that’s obfuscated”).

Yet there is some use for both extremely simple and extremely complex examples: they are helpful to clarify the intended semantics. Therefore, there will be some of each below.

However, in order to be compelling , examples should be rooted in real code, i.e. code that was written without any thought of this PEP, as part of a useful application, however large or small. Tim Peters has been extremely helpful by going over his own personal code repository and picking examples of code he had written that (in his view) would have been clearer if rewritten with (sparing) use of assignment expressions. His conclusion: the current proposal would have allowed a modest but clear improvement in quite a few bits of code.

Another use of real code is to observe indirectly how much value programmers place on compactness. Guido van Rossum searched through a Dropbox code base and discovered some evidence that programmers value writing fewer lines over shorter lines.

Case in point: Guido found several examples where a programmer repeated a subexpression, slowing down the program, in order to save one line of code, e.g. instead of writing:

they would write:

Another example illustrates that programmers sometimes do more work to save an extra level of indentation:

This code tries to match pattern2 even if pattern1 has a match (in which case the match on pattern2 is never used). The more efficient rewrite would have been:

Syntax and semantics

In most contexts where arbitrary Python expressions can be used, a named expression can appear. This is of the form NAME := expr where expr is any valid Python expression other than an unparenthesized tuple, and NAME is an identifier.

The value of such a named expression is the same as the incorporated expression, with the additional side-effect that the target is assigned that value:

There are a few places where assignment expressions are not allowed, in order to avoid ambiguities or user confusion:

This rule is included to simplify the choice for the user between an assignment statement and an assignment expression – there is no syntactic position where both are valid.

Again, this rule is included to avoid two visually similar ways of saying the same thing.

This rule is included to disallow excessively confusing code, and because parsing keyword arguments is complex enough already.

This rule is included to discourage side effects in a position whose exact semantics are already confusing to many users (cf. the common style recommendation against mutable default values), and also to echo the similar prohibition in calls (the previous bullet).

The reasoning here is similar to the two previous cases; this ungrouped assortment of symbols and operators composed of : and = is hard to read correctly.

This allows lambda to always bind less tightly than := ; having a name binding at the top level inside a lambda function is unlikely to be of value, as there is no way to make use of it. In cases where the name will be used more than once, the expression is likely to need parenthesizing anyway, so this prohibition will rarely affect code.

This shows that what looks like an assignment operator in an f-string is not always an assignment operator. The f-string parser uses : to indicate formatting options. To preserve backwards compatibility, assignment operator usage inside of f-strings must be parenthesized. As noted above, this usage of the assignment operator is not recommended.

An assignment expression does not introduce a new scope. In most cases the scope in which the target will be bound is self-explanatory: it is the current scope. If this scope contains a nonlocal or global declaration for the target, the assignment expression honors that. A lambda (being an explicit, if anonymous, function definition) counts as a scope for this purpose.

There is one special case: an assignment expression occurring in a list, set or dict comprehension or in a generator expression (below collectively referred to as “comprehensions”) binds the target in the containing scope, honoring a nonlocal or global declaration for the target in that scope, if one exists. For the purpose of this rule the containing scope of a nested comprehension is the scope that contains the outermost comprehension. A lambda counts as a containing scope.

The motivation for this special case is twofold. First, it allows us to conveniently capture a “witness” for an any() expression, or a counterexample for all() , for example:

Second, it allows a compact way of updating mutable state from a comprehension, for example:

However, an assignment expression target name cannot be the same as a for -target name appearing in any comprehension containing the assignment expression. The latter names are local to the comprehension in which they appear, so it would be contradictory for a contained use of the same name to refer to the scope containing the outermost comprehension instead.

For example, [i := i+1 for i in range(5)] is invalid: the for i part establishes that i is local to the comprehension, but the i := part insists that i is not local to the comprehension. The same reason makes these examples invalid too:

While it’s technically possible to assign consistent semantics to these cases, it’s difficult to determine whether those semantics actually make sense in the absence of real use cases. Accordingly, the reference implementation [1] will ensure that such cases raise SyntaxError , rather than executing with implementation defined behaviour.

This restriction applies even if the assignment expression is never executed:

For the comprehension body (the part before the first “for” keyword) and the filter expression (the part after “if” and before any nested “for”), this restriction applies solely to target names that are also used as iteration variables in the comprehension. Lambda expressions appearing in these positions introduce a new explicit function scope, and hence may use assignment expressions with no additional restrictions.

Due to design constraints in the reference implementation (the symbol table analyser cannot easily detect when names are re-used between the leftmost comprehension iterable expression and the rest of the comprehension), named expressions are disallowed entirely as part of comprehension iterable expressions (the part after each “in”, and before any subsequent “if” or “for” keyword):

A further exception applies when an assignment expression occurs in a comprehension whose containing scope is a class scope. If the rules above were to result in the target being assigned in that class’s scope, the assignment expression is expressly invalid. This case also raises SyntaxError :

(The reason for the latter exception is the implicit function scope created for comprehensions – there is currently no runtime mechanism for a function to refer to a variable in the containing class scope, and we do not want to add such a mechanism. If this issue ever gets resolved this special case may be removed from the specification of assignment expressions. Note that the problem already exists for using a variable defined in the class scope from a comprehension.)

See Appendix B for some examples of how the rules for targets in comprehensions translate to equivalent code.

The := operator groups more tightly than a comma in all syntactic positions where it is legal, but less tightly than all other operators, including or , and , not , and conditional expressions ( A if C else B ). As follows from section “Exceptional cases” above, it is never allowed at the same level as = . In case a different grouping is desired, parentheses should be used.

The := operator may be used directly in a positional function call argument; however it is invalid directly in a keyword argument.

Some examples to clarify what’s technically valid or invalid:

Most of the “valid” examples above are not recommended, since human readers of Python source code who are quickly glancing at some code may miss the distinction. But simple cases are not objectionable:

This PEP recommends always putting spaces around := , similar to PEP 8 ’s recommendation for = when used for assignment, whereas the latter disallows spaces around = used for keyword arguments.)

In order to have precisely defined semantics, the proposal requires evaluation order to be well-defined. This is technically not a new requirement, as function calls may already have side effects. Python already has a rule that subexpressions are generally evaluated from left to right. However, assignment expressions make these side effects more visible, and we propose a single change to the current evaluation order:

• In a dict comprehension {X: Y for ...} , Y is currently evaluated before X . We propose to change this so that X is evaluated before Y . (In a dict display like {X: Y} this is already the case, and also in dict((X, Y) for ...) which should clearly be equivalent to the dict comprehension.)

Most importantly, since := is an expression, it can be used in contexts where statements are illegal, including lambda functions and comprehensions.

Conversely, assignment expressions don’t support the advanced features found in assignment statements:

• Multiple targets are not directly supported: x = y = z = 0 # Equivalent: (z := (y := (x := 0)))
• Single assignment targets other than a single NAME are not supported: # No equivalent a [ i ] = x self . rest = []
• Priority around commas is different: x = 1 , 2 # Sets x to (1, 2) ( x := 1 , 2 ) # Sets x to 1
• Iterable packing and unpacking (both regular or extended forms) are not supported: # Equivalent needs extra parentheses loc = x , y # Use (loc := (x, y)) info = name , phone , * rest # Use (info := (name, phone, *rest)) # No equivalent px , py , pz = position name , phone , email , * other_info = contact
• Inline type annotations are not supported: # Closest equivalent is "p: Optional[int]" as a separate declaration p : Optional [ int ] = None
• Augmented assignment is not supported: total += tax # Equivalent: (total := total + tax)

The following changes have been made based on implementation experience and additional review after the PEP was first accepted and before Python 3.8 was released:

• for consistency with other similar exceptions, and to avoid locking in an exception name that is not necessarily going to improve clarity for end users, the originally proposed TargetScopeError subclass of SyntaxError was dropped in favour of just raising SyntaxError directly. [3]
• due to a limitation in CPython’s symbol table analysis process, the reference implementation raises SyntaxError for all uses of named expressions inside comprehension iterable expressions, rather than only raising them when the named expression target conflicts with one of the iteration variables in the comprehension. This could be revisited given sufficiently compelling examples, but the extra complexity needed to implement the more selective restriction doesn’t seem worthwhile for purely hypothetical use cases.

Examples from the Python standard library

env_base is only used on these lines, putting its assignment on the if moves it as the “header” of the block.

• Current: env_base = os . environ . get ( "PYTHONUSERBASE" , None ) if env_base : return env_base
• Improved: if env_base := os . environ . get ( "PYTHONUSERBASE" , None ): return env_base

Avoid nested if and remove one indentation level.

• Current: if self . _is_special : ans = self . _check_nans ( context = context ) if ans : return ans
• Improved: if self . _is_special and ( ans := self . _check_nans ( context = context )): return ans

Code looks more regular and avoid multiple nested if. (See Appendix A for the origin of this example.)

• Current: reductor = dispatch_table . get ( cls ) if reductor : rv = reductor ( x ) else : reductor = getattr ( x , "__reduce_ex__" , None ) if reductor : rv = reductor ( 4 ) else : reductor = getattr ( x , "__reduce__" , None ) if reductor : rv = reductor () else : raise Error ( "un(deep)copyable object of type %s " % cls )
• Improved: if reductor := dispatch_table . get ( cls ): rv = reductor ( x ) elif reductor := getattr ( x , "__reduce_ex__" , None ): rv = reductor ( 4 ) elif reductor := getattr ( x , "__reduce__" , None ): rv = reductor () else : raise Error ( "un(deep)copyable object of type %s " % cls )

tz is only used for s += tz , moving its assignment inside the if helps to show its scope.

• Current: s = _format_time ( self . _hour , self . _minute , self . _second , self . _microsecond , timespec ) tz = self . _tzstr () if tz : s += tz return s
• Improved: s = _format_time ( self . _hour , self . _minute , self . _second , self . _microsecond , timespec ) if tz := self . _tzstr (): s += tz return s

Calling fp.readline() in the while condition and calling .match() on the if lines make the code more compact without making it harder to understand.

• Current: while True : line = fp . readline () if not line : break m = define_rx . match ( line ) if m : n , v = m . group ( 1 , 2 ) try : v = int ( v ) except ValueError : pass vars [ n ] = v else : m = undef_rx . match ( line ) if m : vars [ m . group ( 1 )] = 0
• Improved: while line := fp . readline (): if m := define_rx . match ( line ): n , v = m . group ( 1 , 2 ) try : v = int ( v ) except ValueError : pass vars [ n ] = v elif m := undef_rx . match ( line ): vars [ m . group ( 1 )] = 0

A list comprehension can map and filter efficiently by capturing the condition:

Similarly, a subexpression can be reused within the main expression, by giving it a name on first use:

Note that in both cases the variable y is bound in the containing scope (i.e. at the same level as results or stuff ).

Assignment expressions can be used to good effect in the header of an if or while statement:

Particularly with the while loop, this can remove the need to have an infinite loop, an assignment, and a condition. It also creates a smooth parallel between a loop which simply uses a function call as its condition, and one which uses that as its condition but also uses the actual value.

An example from the low-level UNIX world:

Rejected alternative proposals

Proposals broadly similar to this one have come up frequently on python-ideas. Below are a number of alternative syntaxes, some of them specific to comprehensions, which have been rejected in favour of the one given above.

A previous version of this PEP proposed subtle changes to the scope rules for comprehensions, to make them more usable in class scope and to unify the scope of the “outermost iterable” and the rest of the comprehension. However, this part of the proposal would have caused backwards incompatibilities, and has been withdrawn so the PEP can focus on assignment expressions.

Broadly the same semantics as the current proposal, but spelled differently.

Since EXPR as NAME already has meaning in import , except and with statements (with different semantics), this would create unnecessary confusion or require special-casing (e.g. to forbid assignment within the headers of these statements).

(Note that with EXPR as VAR does not simply assign the value of EXPR to VAR – it calls EXPR.__enter__() and assigns the result of that to VAR .)

Additional reasons to prefer := over this spelling include:

• In if f(x) as y the assignment target doesn’t jump out at you – it just reads like if f x blah blah and it is too similar visually to if f(x) and y .
• import foo as bar
• except Exc as var
• with ctxmgr() as var

To the contrary, the assignment expression does not belong to the if or while that starts the line, and we intentionally allow assignment expressions in other contexts as well.

• NAME = EXPR
• if NAME := EXPR

reinforces the visual recognition of assignment expressions.

This syntax is inspired by languages such as R and Haskell, and some programmable calculators. (Note that a left-facing arrow y <- f(x) is not possible in Python, as it would be interpreted as less-than and unary minus.) This syntax has a slight advantage over ‘as’ in that it does not conflict with with , except and import , but otherwise is equivalent. But it is entirely unrelated to Python’s other use of -> (function return type annotations), and compared to := (which dates back to Algol-58) it has a much weaker tradition.

This has the advantage that leaked usage can be readily detected, removing some forms of syntactic ambiguity. However, this would be the only place in Python where a variable’s scope is encoded into its name, making refactoring harder.

Execution order is inverted (the indented body is performed first, followed by the “header”). This requires a new keyword, unless an existing keyword is repurposed (most likely with: ). See PEP 3150 for prior discussion on this subject (with the proposed keyword being given: ).

This syntax has fewer conflicts than as does (conflicting only with the raise Exc from Exc notation), but is otherwise comparable to it. Instead of paralleling with expr as target: (which can be useful but can also be confusing), this has no parallels, but is evocative.

One of the most popular use-cases is if and while statements. Instead of a more general solution, this proposal enhances the syntax of these two statements to add a means of capturing the compared value:

This works beautifully if and ONLY if the desired condition is based on the truthiness of the captured value. It is thus effective for specific use-cases (regex matches, socket reads that return '' when done), and completely useless in more complicated cases (e.g. where the condition is f(x) < 0 and you want to capture the value of f(x) ). It also has no benefit to list comprehensions.

Advantages: No syntactic ambiguities. Disadvantages: Answers only a fraction of possible use-cases, even in if / while statements.

Another common use-case is comprehensions (list/set/dict, and genexps). As above, proposals have been made for comprehension-specific solutions.

This brings the subexpression to a location in between the ‘for’ loop and the expression. It introduces an additional language keyword, which creates conflicts. Of the three, where reads the most cleanly, but also has the greatest potential for conflict (e.g. SQLAlchemy and numpy have where methods, as does tkinter.dnd.Icon in the standard library).

As above, but reusing the with keyword. Doesn’t read too badly, and needs no additional language keyword. Is restricted to comprehensions, though, and cannot as easily be transformed into “longhand” for-loop syntax. Has the C problem that an equals sign in an expression can now create a name binding, rather than performing a comparison. Would raise the question of why “with NAME = EXPR:” cannot be used as a statement on its own.

As per option 2, but using as rather than an equals sign. Aligns syntactically with other uses of as for name binding, but a simple transformation to for-loop longhand would create drastically different semantics; the meaning of with inside a comprehension would be completely different from the meaning as a stand-alone statement, while retaining identical syntax.

Regardless of the spelling chosen, this introduces a stark difference between comprehensions and the equivalent unrolled long-hand form of the loop. It is no longer possible to unwrap the loop into statement form without reworking any name bindings. The only keyword that can be repurposed to this task is with , thus giving it sneakily different semantics in a comprehension than in a statement; alternatively, a new keyword is needed, with all the costs therein.

There are two logical precedences for the := operator. Either it should bind as loosely as possible, as does statement-assignment; or it should bind more tightly than comparison operators. Placing its precedence between the comparison and arithmetic operators (to be precise: just lower than bitwise OR) allows most uses inside while and if conditions to be spelled without parentheses, as it is most likely that you wish to capture the value of something, then perform a comparison on it:

Once find() returns -1, the loop terminates. If := binds as loosely as = does, this would capture the result of the comparison (generally either True or False ), which is less useful.

While this behaviour would be convenient in many situations, it is also harder to explain than “the := operator behaves just like the assignment statement”, and as such, the precedence for := has been made as close as possible to that of = (with the exception that it binds tighter than comma).

Some critics have claimed that the assignment expressions should allow unparenthesized tuples on the right, so that these two would be equivalent:

(With the current version of the proposal, the latter would be equivalent to ((point := x), y) .)

However, adopting this stance would logically lead to the conclusion that when used in a function call, assignment expressions also bind less tight than comma, so we’d have the following confusing equivalence:

The less confusing option is to make := bind more tightly than comma.

It’s been proposed to just always require parentheses around an assignment expression. This would resolve many ambiguities, and indeed parentheses will frequently be needed to extract the desired subexpression. But in the following cases the extra parentheses feel redundant:

Frequently Raised Objections

C and its derivatives define the = operator as an expression, rather than a statement as is Python’s way. This allows assignments in more contexts, including contexts where comparisons are more common. The syntactic similarity between if (x == y) and if (x = y) belies their drastically different semantics. Thus this proposal uses := to clarify the distinction.

The two forms have different flexibilities. The := operator can be used inside a larger expression; the = statement can be augmented to += and its friends, can be chained, and can assign to attributes and subscripts.

Previous revisions of this proposal involved sublocal scope (restricted to a single statement), preventing name leakage and namespace pollution. While a definite advantage in a number of situations, this increases complexity in many others, and the costs are not justified by the benefits. In the interests of language simplicity, the name bindings created here are exactly equivalent to any other name bindings, including that usage at class or module scope will create externally-visible names. This is no different from for loops or other constructs, and can be solved the same way: del the name once it is no longer needed, or prefix it with an underscore.

(The author wishes to thank Guido van Rossum and Christoph Groth for their suggestions to move the proposal in this direction. [2] )

As expression assignments can sometimes be used equivalently to statement assignments, the question of which should be preferred will arise. For the benefit of style guides such as PEP 8 , two recommendations are suggested.

• If either assignment statements or assignment expressions can be used, prefer statements; they are a clear declaration of intent.
• If using assignment expressions would lead to ambiguity about execution order, restructure it to use statements instead.

The authors wish to thank Alyssa Coghlan and Steven D’Aprano for their considerable contributions to this proposal, and members of the core-mentorship mailing list for assistance with implementation.

Appendix A: Tim Peters’s findings

Here’s a brief essay Tim Peters wrote on the topic.

I dislike “busy” lines of code, and also dislike putting conceptually unrelated logic on a single line. So, for example, instead of:

instead. So I suspected I’d find few places I’d want to use assignment expressions. I didn’t even consider them for lines already stretching halfway across the screen. In other cases, “unrelated” ruled:

is a vast improvement over the briefer:

The original two statements are doing entirely different conceptual things, and slamming them together is conceptually insane.

In other cases, combining related logic made it harder to understand, such as rewriting:

as the briefer:

The while test there is too subtle, crucially relying on strict left-to-right evaluation in a non-short-circuiting or method-chaining context. My brain isn’t wired that way.

But cases like that were rare. Name binding is very frequent, and “sparse is better than dense” does not mean “almost empty is better than sparse”. For example, I have many functions that return None or 0 to communicate “I have nothing useful to return in this case, but since that’s expected often I’m not going to annoy you with an exception”. This is essentially the same as regular expression search functions returning None when there is no match. So there was lots of code of the form:

I find that clearer, and certainly a bit less typing and pattern-matching reading, as:

It’s also nice to trade away a small amount of horizontal whitespace to get another _line_ of surrounding code on screen. I didn’t give much weight to this at first, but it was so very frequent it added up, and I soon enough became annoyed that I couldn’t actually run the briefer code. That surprised me!

There are other cases where assignment expressions really shine. Rather than pick another from my code, Kirill Balunov gave a lovely example from the standard library’s copy() function in copy.py :

The ever-increasing indentation is semantically misleading: the logic is conceptually flat, “the first test that succeeds wins”:

Using easy assignment expressions allows the visual structure of the code to emphasize the conceptual flatness of the logic; ever-increasing indentation obscured it.

A smaller example from my code delighted me, both allowing to put inherently related logic in a single line, and allowing to remove an annoying “artificial” indentation level:

That if is about as long as I want my lines to get, but remains easy to follow.

So, in all, in most lines binding a name, I wouldn’t use assignment expressions, but because that construct is so very frequent, that leaves many places I would. In most of the latter, I found a small win that adds up due to how often it occurs, and in the rest I found a moderate to major win. I’d certainly use it more often than ternary if , but significantly less often than augmented assignment.

I have another example that quite impressed me at the time.

Where all variables are positive integers, and a is at least as large as the n’th root of x, this algorithm returns the floor of the n’th root of x (and roughly doubling the number of accurate bits per iteration):

It’s not obvious why that works, but is no more obvious in the “loop and a half” form. It’s hard to prove correctness without building on the right insight (the “arithmetic mean - geometric mean inequality”), and knowing some non-trivial things about how nested floor functions behave. That is, the challenges are in the math, not really in the coding.

If you do know all that, then the assignment-expression form is easily read as “while the current guess is too large, get a smaller guess”, where the “too large?” test and the new guess share an expensive sub-expression.

To my eyes, the original form is harder to understand:

This appendix attempts to clarify (though not specify) the rules when a target occurs in a comprehension or in a generator expression. For a number of illustrative examples we show the original code, containing a comprehension, and the translation, where the comprehension has been replaced by an equivalent generator function plus some scaffolding.

Since [x for ...] is equivalent to list(x for ...) these examples all use list comprehensions without loss of generality. And since these examples are meant to clarify edge cases of the rules, they aren’t trying to look like real code.

Note: comprehensions are already implemented via synthesizing nested generator functions like those in this appendix. The new part is adding appropriate declarations to establish the intended scope of assignment expression targets (the same scope they resolve to as if the assignment were performed in the block containing the outermost comprehension). For type inference purposes, these illustrative expansions do not imply that assignment expression targets are always Optional (but they do indicate the target binding scope).

Let’s start with a reminder of what code is generated for a generator expression without assignment expression.

• Original code (EXPR usually references VAR): def f (): a = [ EXPR for VAR in ITERABLE ]
• Translation (let’s not worry about name conflicts): def f (): def genexpr ( iterator ): for VAR in iterator : yield EXPR a = list ( genexpr ( iter ( ITERABLE )))

Let’s add a simple assignment expression.

• Original code: def f (): a = [ TARGET := EXPR for VAR in ITERABLE ]
• Translation: def f (): if False : TARGET = None # Dead code to ensure TARGET is a local variable def genexpr ( iterator ): nonlocal TARGET for VAR in iterator : TARGET = EXPR yield TARGET a = list ( genexpr ( iter ( ITERABLE )))

Let’s add a global TARGET declaration in f() .

• Original code: def f (): global TARGET a = [ TARGET := EXPR for VAR in ITERABLE ]
• Translation: def f (): global TARGET def genexpr ( iterator ): global TARGET for VAR in iterator : TARGET = EXPR yield TARGET a = list ( genexpr ( iter ( ITERABLE )))

Or instead let’s add a nonlocal TARGET declaration in f() .

• Original code: def g (): TARGET = ... def f (): nonlocal TARGET a = [ TARGET := EXPR for VAR in ITERABLE ]
• Translation: def g (): TARGET = ... def f (): nonlocal TARGET def genexpr ( iterator ): nonlocal TARGET for VAR in iterator : TARGET = EXPR yield TARGET a = list ( genexpr ( iter ( ITERABLE )))

Finally, let’s nest two comprehensions.

• Original code: def f (): a = [[ TARGET := i for i in range ( 3 )] for j in range ( 2 )] # I.e., a = [[0, 1, 2], [0, 1, 2]] print ( TARGET ) # prints 2
• Translation: def f (): if False : TARGET = None def outer_genexpr ( outer_iterator ): nonlocal TARGET def inner_generator ( inner_iterator ): nonlocal TARGET for i in inner_iterator : TARGET = i yield i for j in outer_iterator : yield list ( inner_generator ( range ( 3 ))) a = list ( outer_genexpr ( range ( 2 ))) print ( TARGET )

Because it has been a point of confusion, note that nothing about Python’s scoping semantics is changed. Function-local scopes continue to be resolved at compile time, and to have indefinite temporal extent at run time (“full closures”). Example:

This document has been placed in the public domain.

Source: https://github.com/python/peps/blob/main/peps/pep-0572.rst

Last modified: 2023-10-11 12:05:51 GMT

1.7 Java | Assignment Statements & Expressions

An assignment statement designates a value for a variable. An assignment statement can be used as an expression in Java.

After a variable is declared, you can assign a value to it by using an assignment statement . In Java, the equal sign = is used as the assignment operator . The syntax for assignment statements is as follows:

An expression represents a computation involving values, variables, and operators that, when taking them together, evaluates to a value. For example, consider the following code:

You can use a variable in an expression. A variable can also be used on both sides of the =  operator. For example:

In the above assignment statement, the result of x + 1  is assigned to the variable x . Let’s say that x is 1 before the statement is executed, and so becomes 2 after the statement execution.

To assign a value to a variable, you must place the variable name to the left of the assignment operator. Thus the following statement is wrong:

Note that the math equation  x = 2 * x + 1  ≠ the Java expression x = 2 * x + 1

Which is equivalent to:

And this statement

is equivalent to:

Note: The data type of a variable on the left must be compatible with the data type of a value on the right. For example, int x = 1.0 would be illegal, because the data type of x is int (integer) and does not accept the double value 1.0 without Type Casting .

◄◄◄BACK | NEXT►►►

What's Your Opinion? Cancel reply

Enhance your Brain

Subscribe to Receive Free Bio Hacking, Nootropic, and Health Information

HTML for Simple Website Customization My Personal Web Customization Personal Insights

DISCLAIMER | Sitemap | ◘

HTML for Simple Website Customization My Personal Web Customization Personal Insights SEO Checklist Publishing Checklist My Tools

Top Posts & Pages

• Assignment Statement

An Assignment statement is a statement that is used to set a value to the variable name in a program .

Assignment statement allows a variable to hold different types of values during its program lifespan. Another way of understanding an assignment statement is, it stores a value in the memory location which is denoted by a variable name.

The symbol used in an assignment statement is called as an operator . The symbol is ‘=’ .

Note: The Assignment Operator should never be used for Equality purpose which is double equal sign ‘==’.

The Basic Syntax of Assignment Statement in a programming language is :

variable = expression ;

variable = variable name

expression = it could be either a direct value or a math expression/formula or a function call

Few programming languages such as Java, C, C++ require data type to be specified for the variable, so that it is easy to allocate memory space and store those values during program execution.

data_type variable_name = value ;

In the above-given examples, Variable ‘a’ is assigned a value in the same statement as per its defined data type. A data type is only declared for Variable ‘b’. In the 3 rd line of code, Variable ‘a’ is reassigned the value 25. The 4 th line of code assigns the value for Variable ‘b’.

Assignment Statement Forms

This is one of the most common forms of Assignment Statements. Here the Variable name is defined, initialized, and assigned a value in the same statement. This form is generally used when we want to use the Variable quite a few times and we do not want to change its value very frequently.

Tuple Assignment

Generally, we use this form when we want to define and assign values for more than 1 variable at the same time. This saves time and is an easy method. Note that here every individual variable has a different value assigned to it.

(Code In Python)

Sequence Assignment

(Code in Python)

Multiple-target Assignment or Chain Assignment

In this format, a single value is assigned to two or more variables.

Augmented Assignment

In this format, we use the combination of mathematical expressions and values for the Variable. Other augmented Assignment forms are: &=, -=, **=, etc.

Browse more Topics Under Data Types, Variables and Constants

• Concept of Data types
• Built-in Data Types
• Constants in Programing Language 
• Access Modifier
• Variables of Built-in-Datatypes
• Declaration/Initialization of Variables
• Type Modifier

Few Rules for Assignment Statement

Few Rules to be followed while writing the Assignment Statements are:

• Variable names must begin with a letter, underscore, non-number character. Each language has its own conventions.
• The Data type defined and the variable value must match.
• A variable name once defined can only be used once in the program. You cannot define it again to store other types of value.
• If you assign a new value to an existing variable, it will overwrite the previous value and assign the new value.

FAQs on Assignment Statement

Q1. Which of the following shows the syntax of an  assignment statement ?

• variablename = expression ;
• expression = variable ;
• datatype = variablename ;
• expression = datatype variable ;

Answer – Option A.

Q2. What is an expression ?

• Same as statement
• List of statements that make up a program
• Combination of literals, operators, variables, math formulas used to calculate a value
• Numbers expressed in digits

Answer – Option C.

Q3. What are the two steps that take place when an  assignment statement  is executed?

• Evaluate the expression, store the value in the variable
• Reserve memory, fill it with value
• Evaluate variable, store the result
• Store the value in the variable, evaluate the expression.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

Data Types, Variables and Constants

• Variables in Programming Language
• Concept of Data Types
• Declaration of Variables
• Type Modifiers
• Access Modifiers
• Constants in Programming Language

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• C Data Types
• C Operators
• C Input and Output
• C Control Flow
• C Functions
• C Preprocessors
• C File Handling
• C Cheatsheet
• C Interview Questions

Assignment Operators in C

Assignment operators are used for assigning value to a variable. The left side operand of the assignment operator is a variable and right side operand of the assignment operator is a value. The value on the right side must be of the same data-type of the variable on the left side otherwise the compiler will raise an error.

Different types of assignment operators are shown below:

1. “=”: This is the simplest assignment operator. This operator is used to assign the value on the right to the variable on the left. Example:

2. “+=” : This operator is combination of ‘+’ and ‘=’ operators. This operator first adds the current value of the variable on left to the value on the right and then assigns the result to the variable on the left. Example:

If initially value stored in a is 5. Then (a += 6) = 11.

3. “-=” This operator is combination of ‘-‘ and ‘=’ operators. This operator first subtracts the value on the right from the current value of the variable on left and then assigns the result to the variable on the left. Example:

If initially value stored in a is 8. Then (a -= 6) = 2.

4. “*=” This operator is combination of ‘*’ and ‘=’ operators. This operator first multiplies the current value of the variable on left to the value on the right and then assigns the result to the variable on the left. Example:

If initially value stored in a is 5. Then (a *= 6) = 30.

5. “/=” This operator is combination of ‘/’ and ‘=’ operators. This operator first divides the current value of the variable on left by the value on the right and then assigns the result to the variable on the left. Example:

If initially value stored in a is 6. Then (a /= 2) = 3.

Below example illustrates the various Assignment Operators:

Please Login to comment...

Similar reads.

• C-Operators
• cpp-operator
• How to Get a Free SSL Certificate
• Best SSL Certificates Provider in India
• Elon Musk's xAI releases Grok-2 AI assistant
• What is OpenAI SearchGPT? How it works and How to Get it?
• Full Stack Developer Roadmap [2024 Updated]

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

This browser is no longer supported.

Upgrade to Microsoft Edge to take advantage of the latest features, security updates, and technical support.

Statements (C# Programming Guide)

• 13 contributors

The actions that a program takes are expressed in statements. Common actions include declaring variables, assigning values, calling methods, looping through collections, and branching to one or another block of code, depending on a given condition. The order in which statements are executed in a program is called the flow of control or flow of execution. The flow of control may vary every time that a program is run, depending on how the program reacts to input that it receives at run time.

A statement can consist of a single line of code that ends in a semicolon, or a series of single-line statements in a block. A statement block is enclosed in {} brackets and can contain nested blocks. The following code shows two examples of single-line statements, and a multi-line statement block:

Types of statements

The following table lists the various types of statements in C# and their associated keywords, with links to topics that include more information:

Declaration statements

The following code shows examples of variable declarations with and without an initial assignment, and a constant declaration with the necessary initialization.

Expression statements

The following code shows examples of expression statements, including assignment, object creation with assignment, and method invocation.

The empty statement

The following examples show two uses for an empty statement:

Embedded statements

Some statements, for example, iteration statements , always have an embedded statement that follows them. This embedded statement may be either a single statement or multiple statements enclosed by {} brackets in a statement block. Even single-line embedded statements can be enclosed in {} brackets, as shown in the following example:

An embedded statement that is not enclosed in {} brackets cannot be a declaration statement or a labeled statement. This is shown in the following example:

Put the embedded statement in a block to fix the error:

Nested statement blocks

Statement blocks can be nested, as shown in the following code:

Unreachable statements

If the compiler determines that the flow of control can never reach a particular statement under any circumstances, it will produce warning CS0162, as shown in the following example:

C# language specification

For more information, see the Statements section of the C# language specification .

• Statement keywords
• C# operators and expressions

Additional resources