I really like the walrus operator. It's helped me to create more straightforward if/elif blocks and loops. Effective python has some pretty good examples. https://effectivepython.com/2020/02/02/prevent-repetition-wi...

This really isn't a good argument though: it's an extra, extremely specific use case for assignment that looks visually very similar.

And worse, effects code maintainability - if you need that assignment higher up, you're now editing the if statement, adding an assignment, plus whatever your interstitial code is.

Python doesn't have block scoping so the argument for it is weak.

It's not for extremely specific use-case, unless you consider using variables as a condition of an if statement or loop extremely specific.

> And worse, effects code maintainability - if you need that assignment higher up, you're now editing the if statement, adding an assignment, plus whatever your interstitial code is.

How is that different than variables declared without the walrus operator? If you declare a variable with the walrus operator and decide to move its declaration you can still continue to reference that variable in the same spot, just like any other variable. Do you have an example you can share to demonstrate this? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

> Python doesn't have block scoping so the argument for it is weak.

The walrus operator another way to define variables, not change how they behave. It's just another addition to the "pythonic" way of coding. It's helped me to write more concise and even clearer code. I suggest reading the Effective Python link I provided for some examples of how you can benefit from it.

So by way of example - suppose I have this:

  # some other code
  
  if determined_value := some_function_call():
      do_action(determined_value)
  

and then I change it to this:

  # some other code
  
  determined_value = some_function_call()
  logger.info("Determined value was %s", determined_value)
  validate(determined_value)
  
  if determined_value:
      do_action(determined_value)
  

and determined_value is a reasonably expensive operation (at the very least I would never want to redundantly do it twice) - then in this case my diff for this looks like:

  --- <unnamed>
  +++ <unnamed>
  @@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
  -
   # some other code
   
  -if determined_value := some_function_call():
  +determined_value = some_function_call()
  +logger.info("Determined value was %s", determined_value)
  +validate(determined_value)
  +
  +if determined_value:
       do_action(determined_value)

whereas if I wrote it without walrus originally:

  --- <unnamed>
  +++ <unnamed>
  @@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
   # some other code
   
   determined_value = some_function_call()
  +logger.info("Determined value was %s", determined_value)
  +validate(determined_value)
  +
   if determined_value:
       do_action(determined_value)
  

then the diff is easier to read, and the intent is clearer because diff can simply infer that what's happening is the semantic addition of two lines.

Code is read more then it's written, and changed more then originally created, and making the change case clearer makes sense.

Your issue is with the readability of the diff? That is so trivial. You're trying to find anything to complain about at this point. How about just look at the code? You should be doing that anyway.

Diffs are the predominant way people relate to code changes via PRs. It is standard practice to restructure patch sets to produce a set of easy to read to changes which explain what is happening - what "was" and what "will be".

It's standard practice to look at the code alongside a diff. Better yet, use your IDE or a tool to show you far more detail than a diff possibly could. https://www.jetbrains.com/help/pycharm/comparing-files-and-f...

This is such a pedantic, non-issue I don't even know why I'm bothering acknowledging it.

An example where I have wanted this many times before it existed is in something like:

while (n := s.read(buffer)) != 0:

    #do something with first n bytes of buffer

Without the walrus operator you either have to duplicate the read operation before the loop and at the end of the loop, or use while True with a break if n is zero. Both of which are ugly IMO.

It’s really handy in comprehensions to do assignments outside the normal syntax.