[From https://stackoverflow.com/q/52026406/270986]

The following is valid, and works as expected:

>>> def f():
...     x = *(1, 2), 3
...     return x
... 
>>> f()
(1, 2, 3)

But the tuple expression can't be used directly in a "return" statement:

>>> def f():
...     return *(1, 2), 3
  File "<stdin>", line 2
    return *(1, 2), 3
           ^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax

It's trivial to work around, by adding an extra pair of parentheses around the return target, but it seems a surprising inconsistency. Would it make sense to allow this? In terms of the grammar,

    return_stmt: 'return' [testlist]

would be replaced with:

    return_stmt: 'return' [testlist_star_expr]

There may be other places in the grammar where "testlist" could reasonably be replaced with "testlist_star_expr", for example:

    for_stmt: 'for' exprlist 'in' testlist ':' suite ['else' ':' suite]

Other examples:

    eval('*(1, 2), 3')

    a = []; a += *(1, 2), 3

    for i in *(1, 2), 3: pass

    def g(): yield *(1, 2), 3

Thanks, Serhiy. I'm happy to extend my PR to cover those cases, if there's general agreement that it's worth doing so. (*I* personally think this is worth doing, since it smooths some currently rough edges and removes a few surprises, but I'm not comfortable with pushing this forward just on that single data point.)

I think all of these are good.

Perhaps with a small change the for-loop example can allow an elegant way of iterating over multiple iterables. It would need a special case so that `for x in *a, *b:` doesn't first construct a tuple of all elements in a and b. Thoughts?

> It would need a special case so that `for x in *a, *b:` doesn't first construct a tuple of all elements in a and b. Thoughts?

It may be surprising that `for x in *a, *b:` behave differently from `for x in (*a, *b):`.

It is idiomatic to create a list of keys and iterate it if you want to modify the dict during iterating:

    for key in list(d):
        # modify d

This can be written in a form

    for key in [*d]:
        # modify d

or

    for key in (*d,):
        # modify d

(although the latter variant is slightly slower).

That's fair. Maybe we shouldn't support `for x in *a, *b:` at all then, until we've got a BDFL decision? (Because once you support it one way you can't easily change the semantics without breaking backwards compatibility.)

I understand why non-parenthesized tuples are supported in assignments, in return statements and yield expressions and in for loops, but I'm surprised that they are supported in augmented assignments: `a += 1, 2, 3`.

> I'm surprised that they are supported in augmented assignments: `a += 1, 2, 3`.

I guess at the time it was felt that it was better to support it everywhere it *could* be supported -- and if a is a list it even makes some amount of sense. In any case it's too late to change. :-)

Why is this still open? That feature appears already implemented.

See:

commit fd97d1f1af910a6222ea12aec42c456b64f9aee4
Author: David Cuthbert <dacut@kanga.org>
Date:   Fri Sep 21 18:31:15 2018

    bpo-32117: Allow tuple unpacking in return and yield statements (gh-4509)
    
    Iterable unpacking is now allowed without parentheses in yield and return
    statements, e.g. ``yield 1, 2, 3, *rest``. Thanks to David Cuthbert for the
    change and jChapman for added tests.