Once I had to do the following:<br>if a and b and c and d := expensive ():<br>  f(d)<br>else:<br>  g = h<br><br>You had no idea how ugly the workaround was for not having the operator. It was a real time thing.,(reply>), @Mr Roams Yeap. I just write g = h but my else was larger; altoigh not large enough to deserve a function.,(reply>), @Gonzalo Ah, I see. You're right that is a good use of the operator. I thought maybe you could do this but it has the same else twice.<br>if (a and b and c):<br>    d = expensive()<br>    d? f(d): g=h<br>else:<br>    g=h<br><br>I'd say using walrus is clearer in this case.,(reply>), @Mr Roams And execute it always? If any of a, b or c is false then it will not execute. Which is good, because is expensive and there's a lot of data,(reply>), Why not just do:<br>d = expensive();<br>if a and b and c and d: