Python should take a lesson from APL: Walrus operator not needed

During a recent HN discussion about the walrus operator I came to realize yet another advantage of notation. I used APL professionally for about ten years, which made it an obvious source of inspiration for an example that, in my opinion, demonstrates why the Python team missed a very valuable opportunity to take this wonderful language and start exploring the judicious introduction of notation as a valuable tool for thought (borrowing from Ken Iverson's APL paper with that title [0]).

To simplify, I'll define the desire for this walrus operator ":=" as "wanting to be able to make assignments within syntax where it was previously impossible":

    if x = 5    # was impossible

    # and now

    if x := 5  # makes is possible

A more elaborate example given in the PEP goes like this:

    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)
 

At first I thought, well, just extend "=" and be done with it. The HN thread resulted in many comments against this idea. The one that made me think was this one [1]:

    These two are syntactically equal and in Python there's no 
    way a linter can distinguish between these two:

        if reductor = dispatch_table.get(cls):
        if reductor == dispatch_table.get(cls):
    
    A human being can only distinguish them through careful inspection. 
    The walrus operator not only prevents that problem, but makes 
    the intent unambiguous.

Which is a perfectly valid point. I get it.

Still, the idea of two assignment operators just didn't sit well with me. That's when I realized I had seen this kind of a problem nearly thirty years ago, with the introduction of "J". I won't get into the details unless someone is interested, I'll just say that J turned APL into ASCII soup. It was and is ugly and it completely misses the point of the very reason APL has specialized notation; the very thing Iverson highlighted in his paper [0].

Back to Python.

This entire mess could have been avoided by making one simple change that would have possibly nudged the language towards a very interesting era, one where a specialized programming notation could be evolved over time for the benefit of all. That simple change would have been the introduction and adoption of APL's own assignment operator: "←"

In other words, these two things would have been equivalent in Python:

    a ← 23

    a = 23

What's neat about this is that both human and automated tools (linters, etc.) would have no problem understanding the difference between these:

    if reductor ← dispatch_table.get(cls):
    if reductor == dispatch_table.get(cls):

And the larger example would become this:

    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)

This assignment operator would work everywhere and, for a period of time, the "=" operator would be retained. The good news is that old code could be updated with a simple search-and-replace. In fact, code editors could even display "=" as "←" as an option. The transition to only allowing "←" (and perhaps other symbols) could be planned for Python 4.

Clean, simple and forward-looking. That, to me, is a good solution. Today we have "=" and ":=" which, from my opinionated perspective, does not represent progress at all.

[0] http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~jzhu/csc326/readings/iverson.pd...

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21426338