assignment function in python

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.

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

Python Operators: Arithmetic, Assignment, Comparison, Logical, Identity, Membership, Bitwise

Operators are special symbols that perform some operation on operands and returns the result. For example, 5 + 6 is an expression where + is an operator that performs arithmetic add operation on numeric left operand 5 and the right side operand 6 and returns a sum of two operands as a result.

Python includes the operator module that includes underlying methods for each operator. For example, the + operator calls the operator.add(a,b) method.

Above, expression 5 + 6 is equivalent to the expression operator.add(5, 6) and operator.__add__(5, 6) . Many function names are those used for special methods, without the double underscores (dunder methods). For backward compatibility, many of these have functions with the double underscores kept.

Python includes the following categories of operators:

Arithmetic Operators

Assignment operators, comparison operators, logical operators, identity operators, membership test operators, bitwise operators.

Arithmetic operators perform the common mathematical operation on the numeric operands.

The arithmetic operators return the type of result depends on the type of operands, as below.

• If either operand is a complex number, the result is converted to complex;
• If either operand is a floating point number, the result is converted to floating point;
• If both operands are integers, then the result is an integer and no conversion is needed.

The following table lists all the arithmetic operators in Python:

The assignment operators are used to assign values to variables. The following table lists all the arithmetic operators in Python:

The comparison operators compare two operands and return a boolean either True or False. The following table lists comparison operators in Python.

The logical operators are used to combine two boolean expressions. The logical operations are generally applicable to all objects, and support truth tests, identity tests, and boolean operations.

The identity operators check whether the two objects have the same id value e.i. both the objects point to the same memory location.

The membership test operators in and not in test whether the sequence has a given item or not. For the string and bytes types, x in y is True if and only if x is a substring of y .

Bitwise operators perform operations on binary operands.

• Compare strings in Python
• Convert file data to list
• Convert User Input to a Number
• Convert String to Datetime in Python
• How to call external commands in Python?
• How to count the occurrences of a list item?
• How to flatten list in Python?
• How to merge dictionaries in Python?
• How to pass value by reference in Python?
• Remove duplicate items from list in Python
• More Python articles

We are a team of passionate developers, educators, and technology enthusiasts who, with their combined expertise and experience, create in -depth, comprehensive, and easy to understand tutorials.We focus on a blend of theoretical explanations and practical examples to encourages hands - on learning. Visit About Us page for more information.

• Python Questions & Answers
• Python Skill Test
• Python Latest Articles

Learn Python practically and Get Certified .

Popular Tutorials

Popular examples, reference materials, learn python interactively, python introduction.

• Get Started With Python
• Your First Python Program
• Python Comments

Python Fundamentals

• Python Variables and Literals
• Python Type Conversion
• Python Basic Input and Output
• Python Operators

Python Flow Control

• Python if...else Statement
• Python for Loop
• Python while Loop
• Python break and continue
• Python pass Statement

Python Data types

• Python Numbers, Type Conversion and Mathematics
• Python List
• Python Tuple
• Python Sets
• Python Dictionary

Python Functions

Python Function Arguments

• Python Variable Scope
• Python Global Keyword
• Python Recursion
• Python Modules
• Python Package
• Python Main function

Python Files

• Python Directory and Files Management
• Python CSV: Read and Write CSV files
• Reading CSV files in Python
• Writing CSV files in Python
• Python Exception Handling
• Python Exceptions
• Python Custom Exceptions

Python Object & Class

• Python Objects and Classes
• Python Inheritance
• Python Multiple Inheritance
• Polymorphism in Python
• Python Operator Overloading

Python Advanced Topics

• List comprehension

Python Lambda/Anonymous Function

• Python Iterators
• Python Generators
• Python Namespace and Scope
• Python Closures
• Python Decorators
• Python @property decorator
• Python RegEx

Python Date and Time

• Python datetime
• Python strftime()
• Python strptime()
• How to get current date and time in Python?
• Python Get Current Time
• Python timestamp to datetime and vice-versa
• Python time Module
• Python sleep()

Additional Topic

• Precedence and Associativity of Operators in Python
• Python Keywords and Identifiers
• Python Asserts
• Python Json

Python *args and **kwargs

Python Tutorials

Python User-defined Functions

• Python map() Function

In computer programming, an argument is a value that is accepted by a function.

Before we learn about function arguments, make sure to know about Python Functions .

• Example 1: Python Function Arguments

In the above example, the function add_numbers() takes two parameters: a and b . Notice the line,

Here, add_numbers(2, 3) specifies that parameters a and b will get values 2 and 3 respectively.

• Function Argument with Default Values

In Python, we can provide default values to function arguments.

We use the = operator to provide default values. For example,

In the above example, notice the function definition

Here, we have provided default values 7 and 8 for parameters a and b respectively. Here's how this program works

1. add_number(2, 3)

Both values are passed during the function call. Hence, these values are used instead of the default values.

2. add_number(2)

Only one value is passed during the function call. So, according to the positional argument 2 is assigned to argument a , and the default value is used for parameter b .

3. add_number()

No value is passed during the function call. Hence, default value is used for both parameters a and b .

• Python Keyword Argument

In keyword arguments, arguments are assigned based on the name of the arguments. For example,

Here, notice the function call,

Here, we have assigned names to arguments during the function call.

Hence, first_name in the function call is assigned to first_name in the function definition. Similarly, last_name in the function call is assigned to last_name in the function definition.

In such scenarios, the position of arguments doesn't matter.

• Python Function With Arbitrary Arguments

Sometimes, we do not know in advance the number of arguments that will be passed into a function. To handle this kind of situation, we can use arbitrary arguments in Python .

Arbitrary arguments allow us to pass a varying number of values during a function call.

We use an asterisk (*) before the parameter name to denote this kind of argument. For example,

In the above example, we have created the function find_sum() that accepts arbitrary arguments. Notice the lines,

Here, we are able to call the same function with different arguments.

Note : After getting multiple values, numbers behave as an array so we are able to use the for loop to access each value.

Table of Contents

• Introduction

Write a function to return a full name with a space in between.

• For example, if the first_name is John and the last_name is Doe , the return value should be John Doe .

Video: Python Function Arguments: Positional, Keywords and Default

Sorry about that.

Related Tutorials

Python Tutorial

5 Types of Arguments in Python Function Definitions

In Python, a function is defined with def . This is followed by the name of the function and a set of formal parameters. The actual parameters , or arguments, are passed during a function call. We can define a function with a variable number of arguments.

Here’s what you need to know about the five common types of arguments in Python function definition. 

5 Arguments in Python to Know

• default arguments
• keyword arguments
• positional arguments
• arbitrary positional arguments
• arbitrary keyword arguments

Default Arguments in Python

• Default arguments are values that are provided while defining functions.
• The assignment operator = is used to assign a default value to the argument.
• Default arguments become optional during the function calls.
• If we provide a value to the default arguments during function calls, it overrides the default value.
• The function can have any number of default arguments.
• Default arguments should follow non-default arguments.

In the below example, the default value is given to argument b   and c

This function can be called in one of three ways:

1. Giving Only the Mandatory Argument

2. giving one of the optional arguments.

3 is assigned to a , 4 is assigned to b .

3. Giving All the Arguments

Default values are evaluated only once at the point of the function definition in the defining scope. So, it makes a difference when we pass mutable objects like a list or dictionary as default values.

More on Python: 13 Python Code Snippets You Need to Know

Keyword Arguments in Python

Functions can also be called using keyword arguments of the form kwarg=value .

During a function call, values passed through arguments don’t need to be in the order of parameters in the function definition. This can be achieved by keyword arguments. But all the keyword arguments should match the parameters in the function definition.

Calling the function add by giving keyword arguments

All parameters are given as keyword arguments, so there’s no need to maintain the same order.

During a function call, only giving a mandatory argument as a keyword argument. Optional default arguments are skipped.

Positional Arguments in Python

During a function call, values passed through arguments should be in the order of parameters in the function definition. This is called positional arguments.

Keyword arguments should follow positional arguments only.

The above function can be called in two ways:

First, during the function call, all arguments are given as positional arguments. Values passed through arguments are passed to parameters by their position. 10 is assigned to a , 20 is assigned to b and 30 is assigned to c .

The second way is by giving a mix of positional and keyword arguments. Keyword arguments should always follow positional arguments.

Default vs Positional vs Keyword Arguments

Important Points to Remember

1. Default Arguments Should Follow Non-Default Arguments

2. keyword arguments should follow positional arguments, 3. all keyword arguments passed must match one of the arguments accepted by the function, and their order isn’t important, 4. no argument should receive a value more than once, 5. default arguments are optional arguments.

Giving only the mandatory arguments:

Giving all arguments (optional and mandatory arguments)

What Are Variable-Length Arguments in Python?

Variable-length arguments are also known as arbitrary arguments. If we don’t know the number of arguments needed for the function in advance, we can use arbitrary arguments

There are two types of arbitrary arguments:

• Arbitrary positional arguments.
• Arbitrary keyword arguments.

Arbitrary Positional Arguments in Python

For arbitrary positional argument, an asterisk (*) is placed before a parameter in function definition which can hold non-keyword variable-length arguments. These arguments will be wrapped up in a tuple . Before the variable number of arguments, zero or more normal arguments may occur.

Arbitrary Keyword Arguments in Python

For arbitrary positional argument, a double asterisk (**) is placed before a parameter in a function which can hold keyword variable-length arguments.

More on Python: Introduction to Priority Queues in Python

Understanding Special Parameters in Python

According to Python Documentation :

“By default, arguments may be passed to a Python function either by position or explicitly by keyword. For readability and performance, it makes sense to restrict the way arguments can be passed so that a developer need only look at the function definition to determine if items are passed by position, by position or keyword, or by keyword.”

As a result, a function definition may look like this:

Where / and * are optional. If used, these symbols indicate the kind of parameter by how the arguments may be passed to the function, including: 

• Positional or keyword arguments.
• Positional only parameters.
• Keyword-only arguments.

1. Positional or Keyword Arguments

If / and * are not present in the function definition, arguments may be passed to a function by position or by keyword.

2. Positional Only Parameters

Positional-only parameters are placed before a / (forward-slash) in the function definition. The / is used to logically separate the positional-only parameters from the rest of the parameters. Parameters following the / may be positional-or-keyword or keyword-only.

If we specify keyword arguments for positional only arguments, it will raise TypeError .

3. Keyword Only Arguments

To mark parameters as keyword-only, place an * in the arguments list just before the first keyword-only parameter.

If we specify positional arguments for keyword-only arguments it will raise TypeError .

All three calling conventions are used in the same function. In the example below, the function add contains all three arguments:

• a , b : Positional only arguments.
• c : Positional or keyword arguments.
• d : Keyword-only arguments.

Below are some important points to remember for special parameters in Python:

• Use positional-only if you want the name of the parameters to not be available to the user. This is useful when parameter names have no real meaning.
• Use positional-only if you want to enforce the order of the arguments when the function is called.
• Use keyword-only when names have meaning and the function definition is more understandable by being explicit with names.
• Use keyword-only when you want to prevent users from relying on the position of the argument being passed.      

Built In’s expert contributor network publishes thoughtful, solutions-oriented stories written by innovative tech professionals. It is the tech industry’s definitive destination for sharing compelling, first-person accounts of problem-solving on the road to innovation.

Great Companies Need Great People. That's Where We Come In.

Assignments  »  Function  »  Set 1

1. Write a function find_max that accepts three numbers as arguments and returns the largest number among three. Write another function main, in main() function accept three numbers from user and call find_max. Solution

2. Write a function, is_vowel that returns the value true if a given character is a vowel, and otherwise returns false. Write another function main, in main() function accept a string from user and count number of vowels in that string. Solution

3. Write a function named is_prime, which takes an integer as an argument and returns true if the argument is a prime number, or false otherwise. Also, write the main function that displays prime numbers between 1 to 500. Solution

4. Write a function in python to find the sum of the cube of elements in a list. The list is received as an argument to the function, in turn, the function must return the sum. Write the main function which invokes the above function. Solution

5. Write the definition of a function zero_ending(scores) to add all those values in the list of scores, which are ending with zero and display the sum.

For example: If the scores contain [200, 456, 300, 100, 234, 678] The sum should be displayed as 600. Solution

For example : If the list places contains ["DELHI","LONDON","PARIS","NEW YORK","DUBAI"] The following should get displayed : LONDON NEW YORK Solution

7. Write a method in python to display the elements of list thrice if it is a number and display the element terminated with ‘#’ if it is not a number.

For example, if the content of list is as follows : ThisList=[‘41’,‘DROND’,‘GIRIRAJ’, ‘13’,‘ZARA’] The output should be 414141 DROND# GIRIRAJ# 131313 ZARA# Solution

8. For a given list of values in descending order, write a method in python to search for a value with the help of Binary Search method. The method should return position of the value and should return -1 if the value not present in the list. Solution

9. Write a function half_and_half that takes in a list and change the list such that the elements of the second half are now in the first half.

For example, if the size of list is even and content of list is as follows : my_liist = [10,20,30,40,50,60] The output should be [40,50,60,10,20,30] if the size of list is odd and content of list is as follows : my_liist = [10,20,30,40,50,60,70] The output should be [50,60,70,40,10,20,30] Solution

10. Write a function that accepts a dictionary as an argument. If the dictionary contains duplicate values, it should return an empty dictionary. Otherwise, it should return a new dictionary where the values become the keys and the keys become the values.

For example, if the dictionary contains the following key-value pairs: {'a': 10, 'b': 20, 'c': 20} the function should return an empty dictionary {} because there are duplicate values. On the other hand, if the dictionary contains the following key-value pairs: {'a': 10, 'b': 20, 'c': 30} the function should return a new dictionary {10: 'a', 20: 'b', 30: 'c'} where the values from the original dictionary become the keys, and the keys from the original dictionary become the values. Solution

• Python Basics
• Interview Questions
• Python Quiz
• Popular Packages
• Python Projects
• Practice Python
• AI With Python
• Learn Python3
• Python Automation
• Python Web Dev
• DSA with Python
• Python OOPs
• Dictionaries

Python Operators

Precedence and associativity of operators in python.

• Python Arithmetic Operators
• Difference between / vs. // operator in Python
• Python - Star or Asterisk operator ( * )
• What does the Double Star operator mean in Python?
• Division Operators in Python
• Modulo operator (%) in Python
• Python Logical Operators
• Python OR Operator
• Difference between 'and' and '&' in Python
• not Operator in Python | Boolean Logic

Ternary Operator in Python

• Python Bitwise Operators

Python Assignment Operators

Assignment operators in python.

• Walrus Operator in Python 3.8
• Increment += and Decrement -= Assignment Operators in Python
• Merging and Updating Dictionary Operators in Python 3.9
• New '=' Operator in Python3.8 f-string

Python Relational Operators

• Comparison Operators in Python
• Python NOT EQUAL operator
• Difference between == and is operator in Python
• Chaining comparison operators in Python
• Python Membership and Identity Operators
• Difference between != and is not operator in Python

In Python programming, Operators in general are used to perform operations on values and variables. These are standard symbols used for logical and arithmetic operations. In this article, we will look into different types of Python operators. 

• OPERATORS: These are the special symbols. Eg- + , * , /, etc.
• OPERAND: It is the value on which the operator is applied.

Types of Operators in Python

• Arithmetic Operators
• Comparison Operators
• Logical Operators
• Bitwise Operators
• Assignment Operators
• Identity Operators and Membership Operators

Arithmetic Operators in Python

Python Arithmetic operators are used to perform basic mathematical operations like addition, subtraction, multiplication , and division .

In Python 3.x the result of division is a floating-point while in Python 2.x division of 2 integers was an integer. To obtain an integer result in Python 3.x floored (// integer) is used.

Example of Arithmetic Operators in Python

Division operators.

In Python programming language Division Operators allow you to divide two numbers and return a quotient, i.e., the first number or number at the left is divided by the second number or number at the right and returns the quotient. 

There are two types of division operators: 

Float division

• Floor division

The quotient returned by this operator is always a float number, no matter if two numbers are integers. For example:

Example: The code performs division operations and prints the results. It demonstrates that both integer and floating-point divisions return accurate results. For example, ’10/2′ results in ‘5.0’ , and ‘-10/2’ results in ‘-5.0’ .

Integer division( Floor division)

The quotient returned by this operator is dependent on the argument being passed. If any of the numbers is float, it returns output in float. It is also known as Floor division because, if any number is negative, then the output will be floored. For example:

Example: The code demonstrates integer (floor) division operations using the // in Python operators . It provides results as follows: ’10//3′ equals ‘3’ , ‘-5//2’ equals ‘-3’ , ‘ 5.0//2′ equals ‘2.0’ , and ‘-5.0//2’ equals ‘-3.0’ . Integer division returns the largest integer less than or equal to the division result.

Precedence of Arithmetic Operators in Python

The precedence of Arithmetic Operators in Python is as follows:

• P – Parentheses
• E – Exponentiation
• M – Multiplication (Multiplication and division have the same precedence)
• D – Division
• A – Addition (Addition and subtraction have the same precedence)
• S – Subtraction

The modulus of Python operators helps us extract the last digit/s of a number. For example:

• x % 10 -> yields the last digit
• x % 100 -> yield last two digits

Arithmetic Operators With Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication, Modulo and Power

Here is an example showing how different Arithmetic Operators in Python work:

Example: The code performs basic arithmetic operations with the values of ‘a’ and ‘b’ . It adds (‘+’) , subtracts (‘-‘) , multiplies (‘*’) , computes the remainder (‘%’) , and raises a to the power of ‘b (**)’ . The results of these operations are printed.

Note: Refer to Differences between / and // for some interesting facts about these two Python operators.

Comparison of Python Operators

In Python Comparison of Relational operators compares the values. It either returns True or False according to the condition.

= is an assignment operator and == comparison operator.

Precedence of Comparison Operators in Python

In Python, the comparison operators have lower precedence than the arithmetic operators. All the operators within comparison operators have the same precedence order.

Example of Comparison Operators in Python

Let’s see an example of Comparison Operators in Python.

Example: The code compares the values of ‘a’ and ‘b’ using various comparison Python operators and prints the results. It checks if ‘a’ is greater than, less than, equal to, not equal to, greater than, or equal to, and less than or equal to ‘b’ .

Logical Operators in Python

Python Logical operators perform Logical AND , Logical OR , and Logical NOT operations. It is used to combine conditional statements.

Precedence of Logical Operators in Python

The precedence of Logical Operators in Python is as follows:

• Logical not
• logical and

Example of Logical Operators in Python

The following code shows how to implement Logical Operators in Python:

Example: The code performs logical operations with Boolean values. It checks if both ‘a’ and ‘b’ are true ( ‘and’ ), if at least one of them is true ( ‘or’ ), and negates the value of ‘a’ using ‘not’ . The results are printed accordingly.

Bitwise Operators in Python

Python Bitwise operators act on bits and perform bit-by-bit operations. These are used to operate on binary numbers.

Precedence of Bitwise Operators in Python

The precedence of Bitwise Operators in Python is as follows:

• Bitwise NOT
• Bitwise Shift
• Bitwise AND
• Bitwise XOR

Here is an example showing how Bitwise Operators in Python work:

Example: The code demonstrates various bitwise operations with the values of ‘a’ and ‘b’ . It performs bitwise AND (&) , OR (|) , NOT (~) , XOR (^) , right shift (>>) , and left shift (<<) operations and prints the results. These operations manipulate the binary representations of the numbers.

Python Assignment operators are used to assign values to the variables.

Let’s see an example of Assignment Operators in Python.

Example: The code starts with ‘a’ and ‘b’ both having the value 10. It then performs a series of operations: addition, subtraction, multiplication, and a left shift operation on ‘b’ . The results of each operation are printed, showing the impact of these operations on the value of ‘b’ .

Identity Operators in Python

In Python, is and is not are the identity operators both are used to check if two values are located on the same part of the memory. Two variables that are equal do not imply that they are identical. 

Example Identity Operators in Python

Let’s see an example of Identity Operators in Python.

Example: The code uses identity operators to compare variables in Python. It checks if ‘a’ is not the same object as ‘b’ (which is true because they have different values) and if ‘a’ is the same object as ‘c’ (which is true because ‘c’ was assigned the value of ‘a’ ).

Membership Operators in Python

In Python, in and not in are the membership operators that are used to test whether a value or variable is in a sequence.

Examples of Membership Operators in Python

The following code shows how to implement Membership Operators in Python:

Example: The code checks for the presence of values ‘x’ and ‘y’ in the list. It prints whether or not each value is present in the list. ‘x’ is not in the list, and ‘y’ is present, as indicated by the printed messages. The code uses the ‘in’ and ‘not in’ Python operators to perform these checks.

in Python, Ternary operators also known as conditional expressions are operators that evaluate something based on a condition being true or false. It was added to Python in version 2.5. 

It simply allows testing a condition in a single line replacing the multiline if-else making the code compact.

Syntax :   [on_true] if [expression] else [on_false] 

Examples of Ternary Operator in Python

The code assigns values to variables ‘a’ and ‘b’ (10 and 20, respectively). It then uses a conditional assignment to determine the smaller of the two values and assigns it to the variable ‘min’ . Finally, it prints the value of ‘min’ , which is 10 in this case.

In Python, Operator precedence and associativity determine the priorities of the operator.

Operator Precedence in Python

This is used in an expression with more than one operator with different precedence to determine which operation to perform first.

Let’s see an example of how Operator Precedence in Python works:

Example: The code first calculates and prints the value of the expression 10 + 20 * 30 , which is 610. Then, it checks a condition based on the values of the ‘name’ and ‘age’ variables. Since the name is “ Alex” and the condition is satisfied using the or operator, it prints “Hello! Welcome.”

Operator Associativity in Python

If an expression contains two or more operators with the same precedence then Operator Associativity is used to determine. It can either be Left to Right or from Right to Left.

The following code shows how Operator Associativity in Python works:

Example: The code showcases various mathematical operations. It calculates and prints the results of division and multiplication, addition and subtraction, subtraction within parentheses, and exponentiation. The code illustrates different mathematical calculations and their outcomes.

To try your knowledge of Python Operators, you can take out the quiz on Operators in Python . 

Python Operator Exercise Questions

Below are two Exercise Questions on Python Operators. We have covered arithmetic operators and comparison operators in these exercise questions. For more exercises on Python Operators visit the page mentioned below.

Q1. Code to implement basic arithmetic operations on integers

Q2. Code to implement Comparison operations on integers

Explore more Exercises: Practice Exercise on Operators in Python

Please Login to comment...

Similar reads.

• python-basics
• Python-Operators

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

Proposal: Annotate types in multiple assignment

Right, but it seems like PyTorch could have annotated all of these call functions using a ParamSpec and return value annotation thereby making __call__ have the same annotation as forward .

If you left the type checker to infer a’s type, it would choose int . In practice, the need for this is rare - I mostly see it when declaring instance variables that default to None : self.count: int|None = None

That’s not always the case. Sometimes, you are fine with the type of the variable being inferred from the type of value assigned to them. Sometimes, you want an error to be raised if you know that, e.g., a should be an int and b should be a bool , but it turns out you use the wrong function to initialize them or the definition of the function has changed at some point.

OK, I went through the entire thread and I don’t think allowing the syntax outside of assignments has been brought up yet.

While this would be a syntax error:

Why not just do one annotation per line? A personal opinion, but I think it’s better style.

There seems to be a lot of ideas over the last few years that revolve around save one line here or there while making code harder to read. I think this is a false economy.

Too be honest, in that case I just don’t write a type annotation. It’s just overkill (even for me).

I have a personal framework, where I often use the following:

I would personally prefer the following style, instead of spreading the variable definitions over multiple lines - and thereby putting more emphasis on them than they are worth:

Personally, I would do this:

but I admit it depends on prevalence and context. It’s possible you may also be better doing match self.path_args .

One option that hasn’t been brought up yet is to do it on one line using cast .

When the return type depends on the arguments. Ideally function return type should be merged with explicit annotations. Like so:

subplots is annotated to return tuple[Figure, Any], so fig and axes should now be typed as Figure and Mapping respectively.

a: int, b: bool = fun()

You can already write

I wouldn’t recommend it, like most usages of ; .

Isn’t it an array of axes? Anyway, polymorphic returns like this are usually poor interface design. Someone tried to save a comma and created headaches.

If you call plt.subplots(1, 1, ....) then the result is tuple[Figure, Axes] (a single axes object), unless you also pass squeeze=False . I don’t think anyone would accuse matplotlib of having a great interface, but at this point it’s hard to change it.

Yes, I know how it works. It’s a bad interface. So I don’t think it’s a good justification for the proposed feature.

Exactly. Therefore, I believe the proposed feature offers a simple and consistent solution to alleviate the headaches caused by code created by others, especially when it is difficult or time-consuming to fix their code.

Personally, I’d rather push people to write good interfaces, than make it easier to work around bad ones. But I understand your point.

So, for this, I’d rather just do the annotations on a different line for these (somewhat rare) cases.

The feature already exists, what is discussed is a natural extension of it, and I personally would love to see it to be extended to for loops.

The best is the enemy of good. Python is a very flexible language used for prototyping and by people without CS degrees so I wouldn’t expect it to become a model of properly crafted and annotated interfaces any time soon, or ever.

Related Topics