I love the walrus operator. It’s made my code a whole lot cleaner,(reply>), Lawrence D’Oliveiro There are also other ways of using the walrus operator, such as the examples in the video.,(reply>), Lawrence D’Oliveiro Just because there is another way of doing something, it doesn’t mean it’s the right way. Like you said earlier, computers are meant to serve you, so having more features that make your code easier to understand is only a positive. The operator is available to make your code cleaner in most cases. Since other people will also have to read your code as well, you can’t just do what makes sense to you only.,(reply>), @PythonPlusPlus I figure computers are here to serve me, I am not here to serve them. They do what I want, not what they want, to solve my problems, not theirs. It is a quirk of Python that, while a “for”-statement does not introduce a new scope for the loop variable, a “for”-clause in a sequence comprehension does.<br><br>As long as that feature exists, the walrus is completely unnecessary.,(reply>), Lawrence D’Oliveiro Obviously not. In the example you gave there is always one item though. Which is not what loops are meant for. Using a loop when you know there is only 1 item is the problem.,(reply>), @PythonPlusPlus So you have to decide beforehand how many times the loop is going to loop to decide whether to use a loop or not?