gh-144639: Ruff: target Python 3.14 syntax in Lib/test

[hugovk]

• Issue: Ruff erroneously flagging modern syntax as syntax errors due to targeting Python 3.12 #144639

[picnixz]

I would suggest that we keep the old syntax but keep the ruff update. Btw ISTM that this new syntax is similar to the old print syntax which was then replaced by the () form so I still struggle to parse this.

[picnixz]

Any reason for this specific change? (or is it a ruff change?)

[hugovk]

It's a manual change.

Please see the linked issue: @brettcannon had suggested it in a PR (#144293) but it had to be reverted because our tools wouldn't let us use 3.14 syntax in 3.15 tests.

[AlexWaygood]

I like the new syntax: it means less noisy punctuation, and it's similar to the way that tuples don't need parentheses to be tuples.

[picnixz]

I like the new syntax: it means less noisy punctuation, and it's similar to the way that tuples don't need parentheses to be tuples.

Yeah this kind of syntax is also annoying for me except for destructuring... (I always put parentheses around my tuples except when doing a x, y = ...) At least we agree on not agreeing! I won't block on that change (though I think it's preferrable if we decide which syntax to use because while less noisy it is still hard without it for me to read it (the comma looks like I'm done with my line so my eyes don't parse afterwards. With parentheses, I know I need to find the other closing parenthesis).

[hugovk]

I think the SC accepting PEP 758 is a pretty good signal that it's okay to use :) This is modern Python.

With parentheses, I know I need to find the other closing parenthesis).

Ironically, your full last comment has three opening parentheses, but only two closing ones! Or perhaps an argument for using fewer parentheses ;)

[picnixz]

Ironically, your full last comment has three opening parentheses, but only two closing ones! Or perhaps an argument for using fewer parentheses ;)

Yeah I saw that! well it is an argument for using fewer but it won't help me when reading (when writing it could!)

[picnixz]

Btw, the only place where I found the missing parentheses in tuples was in the stdlib. I didn't see other codes doing it actually so I never knew about it! (I only learned about it when looking at our tests...)

[AlexWaygood]

Btw, the only place where I found the missing parentheses in tuples was in the stdlib. I didn't see other codes doing it actually so I never knew about it! (I only learned about it when looking at our tests...)

Huh, I think it's fairly common to do for a, b in my_dict.items(): ...