70

In Python one can do:

a, b   = 1, 2
(a, b) = 1, 2
[a, b] = 1, 2

I checked the generated bytecode using dis and they are identical.
So why allow this at all? Would I ever need one of these instead of the others?

Aillyn
  • 23,354
  • 24
  • 59
  • 84

5 Answers5

75

One case when you need to include more structure on the left hand side of the assignment is when you're asking Python unpack a slightly more complicated sequence. E.g.:

# Works
>>> a, (b, c) = [1, [2, 3]]

# Does not work
>>> a, b, c = [1, [2, 3]]
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
ValueError: need more than 2 values to unpack

This has proved useful for me in the past, for example, when using enumerate to iterate over a sequence of 2-tuples. Something like:

>>> d = { 'a': 'x', 'b': 'y', 'c': 'z' }
>>> for i, (key, value) in enumerate(d.iteritems()):
...     print (i, key, value)
(0, 'a', 'x')
(1, 'c', 'z')
(2, 'b', 'y')
Will McCutchen
  • 13,047
  • 3
  • 44
  • 43
13

Python tuples can often be written with or without the parentheses:

a = 1, 2, 3

is equivalent to

a = (1, 2, 3)

In some cases, you need parentheses to resolve ambiguities, for examples if you want to pass the tuple (1, 2) to the function f, you will have to write f((1, 2)). Because the parentheses are sometimes needed, they are always allowed for consistency, just like you can always write (a + b) instead of a + b.

If you want to unpack a nested sequence, you also need parentheses:

a, (b, c) = 1, (2, 3)

There does not seem to be a reason to also allow square brackets, and people rarely do.

Sven Marnach
  • 574,206
  • 118
  • 941
  • 841
  • 1
    Would you consider it as a bug when square brackets are allowed in this context? For me this behavior seems to violate (at least): `There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.` and `Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.` Thanks – eat Mar 03 '11 at 15:44
  • 1
    @eat: I definitely would not call this a bug. It is clearly [documented](http://docs.python.org/reference/simple_stmts.html#assignment-statements). I'm just wondering about the rationale for this design decision. – Sven Marnach Mar 03 '11 at 15:51
  • 2
    OK, not a bug, but when you say that `just wondering about the rationale for this design decision` makes me also curious and perplexed of what would be a (even single) justifiable use case for `[...]= ` then?. Thanks – eat Mar 03 '11 at 16:22
  • 1
    The square bracket syntax makes it more straightforward to use list methods when enumerating over a sequence of collections. Admittedly a narrow use case, since the collections have to be of equal length to be unpacked this way. – Air May 21 '14 at 18:06
4

When unpacking a single-element iterable, the list syntax is prettier:

a,=f()    # comma looks out of place
(a,)=f()  # still odd
[a]=f()   # looks like every other list
Davis Herring
  • 36,443
  • 4
  • 48
  • 76
2

They are also same because the assignment happens from Right to left and on the right, you have one type, which is a sequence of two elements. When the asignment call is made, the sequence is unpacked and looked for corresponding elements to match and given to those values. Yes, any one way should be fine in this case where the sequence is unpacked to respective elements.

Senthil Kumaran
  • 54,681
  • 14
  • 94
  • 131
0

An open parenthesis allows for a multi-line assignment. For example, when reading a row from csv.reader(), it makes code more readable (if less efficient) to load the list into named variables with a single assignment.

Starting with a parenthesis avoids long or \ escaped lines.

(a, b,
c) = [1, 2, 3]

(Imagine more and longer variable names)

wjandrea
  • 28,235
  • 9
  • 60
  • 81
verbamour
  • 945
  • 9
  • 16
  • 1
    What’s the inefficiency you mention? – Davis Herring Feb 09 '19 at 15:57
  • 1
    Mostly just the filling up of namespace with those variable names. I know it's not much of a burden, but I came from an embedded background. – verbamour Feb 11 '19 at 18:15
  • 2
    CPython compiles a function’s local variables into slots in an array; it’s probably rather more efficient than accessing the sequence’s elements by index (especially repeatedly). – Davis Herring Feb 12 '19 at 00:55