Skip to content

gh-87447: Fix walrus comprehension rebind checking #100581

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.

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

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Jan 8, 2023

Conversation

sobolevn
Copy link
Member

@sobolevn sobolevn commented Dec 28, 2022

I went with the most straightforward approach. I am not very qualified in this module, so I would love to hear about any possible drawbacks this solution might have!

@sobolevn
Copy link
Member Author

Sorry, I did not click on the second reviewer the first time! :(

Copy link
Contributor

@hauntsaninja hauntsaninja left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you! I'm not very familiar with symtable, but left one comment.

I think it might also need a little more consensus that this is something that should be fixed; I tried to restart discussion in #87447 (comment)

@@ -1488,7 +1488,8 @@ symtable_extend_namedexpr_scope(struct symtable *st, expr_ty e)
*/
if (ste->ste_comprehension) {
long target_in_scope = _PyST_GetSymbol(ste, target_name);
if (target_in_scope & DEF_COMP_ITER) {
if ((target_in_scope & DEF_COMP_ITER) &&
(target_in_scope & (DEF_LOCAL | DEF_GLOBAL))) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm, should this also check DEF_NONLOCAL?

Actually, looking closer, I think DEF_GLOBAL might be impossible, because we already check for it when setting DEF_COMP_ITER. Or at least, tests pass without checking DEF_GLOBAL here.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, you are right.

Copy link
Contributor

@hauntsaninja hauntsaninja left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks! With the fix, the code seems reasonable to me, but I'm not comfortable enough with this module for that to mean much.

I think this merits a What's New entry, along the lines of https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/3.11.html#other-language-changes

exec(f"lambda: {code}", {}) # Function scope

def test_named_expression_valid_rebinding_list_comprehension_iteration_variable(self):
cases = [
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can you add a comment at the start of the test explaining that we are cheching that anything that is not directly a comprehension iteration variable (a or b) can be assigned to?

Also, we probably should ensure ALL comprehensions are covered by the test (add another for loop that changes the brackets).

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done! Except for dict comprehensions. Looks like they are not tested in test_named_expressions at all. I've opened a new task for it here: #100746

Copy link
Member

@pablogsal pablogsal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Fantastic work @sobolevn!

Let's leave some time for @emilyemorehouse in case she wants to take a look and we can land it then. If this is not landed in a week or so, please ping me and I will land it.

Co-authored-by: Pablo Galindo Salgado <Pablogsal@gmail.com>
Copy link
Member

@emilyemorehouse emilyemorehouse left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The implementation of this looks great, thanks @sobolevn!

I went back and forth a bit on whether the underlying issue should be fixed in this way and ultimately agree – the current behavior is certainly confusing and while I'm not highly motivated by the use cases, it makes sense given that we allow the use of local variables in assignment expressions in other scenarios. I'm also in favor of leaving this as a change for 3.12 and not backporting.

Thanks, all!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants