Skip to content

[3.9] bpo-42381: Allow walrus in set literals and set comprehensions (GH-23332) #23333

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 18, 2020
Merged

[3.9] bpo-42381: Allow walrus in set literals and set comprehensions (GH-23332) #23333

merged 1 commit into from
Nov 18, 2020

Conversation

pablogsal
Copy link
Member

@pablogsal pablogsal commented Nov 17, 2020 •
edited by bedevere-bot
Loading

{y := 4, 42, 33}
File "", line 1
{y := 4, 42, 33}
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax

but they should be allowed as well per PEP 572.
(cherry picked from commit b0aba1f)

Co-authored-by: Pablo Galindo Pablogsal@gmail.com

https://bugs.python.org/issue42381

@pablogsal
[3.9] bpo-42381: Allow walrus in set literals and set comprehensions (p…
7638f99 
…ythonGH-23332)

Currently walruses are not allowerd in set literals and set comprehensions:

>>> {y := 4, 4**2, 3**3}
  File "<stdin>", line 1
    {y := 4, 4**2, 3**3}
       ^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax

but they should be allowed as well per PEP 572.
(cherry picked from commit b0aba1f)

Co-authored-by: Pablo Galindo <Pablogsal@gmail.com>
@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot mentioned this pull request Nov 17, 2020
Merged
lysnikolaou
lysnikolaou approved these changes Nov 18, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@lysnikolaou lysnikolaou left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes!

@pablogsal pablogsal merged commit 87c87b5 into python:3.9 Nov 18, 2020
@GPHemsley
Copy link
Contributor

Doesn't backporting this to 3.9 mean that code that works with 3.9.1 would throw a syntax error in 3.9.0?

@pablogsal
Copy link
Member Author

Doesn't backporting this to 3.9 mean that code that works with 3.9.1 would throw a syntax error in 3.9.0?

Yep, but precisely because if that is not backwards incompatible. No code that works in 3.9.0 will be broken in 3.9.1

@pablogsal pablogsal deleted the backport-b0aba1f-3.9 branch May 19, 2021 18:59
@dhruvmanila dhruvmanila mentioned this pull request Mar 4, 2025
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@lysnikolaou lysnikolaou lysnikolaou approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@pablogsal @GPHemsley @lysnikolaou @the-knights-who-say-ni @bedevere-bot