> Guido hates it *because* it's almost certainly an error. Yes, I know what you meant. I was just trying to point out that, as far as I can see, it's only Guido's *opinion* that it's almost certainly an error. Let n1 be the number of times that [x if y] appears in some program and the programmer actually meant to write something else. Let n2 be the number of times [x if y] appears and the programmer really meant it. Now, I agree that n1+n2 will probably be a very small number. But from that alone it doesn't follow that a given instance of [x if y] is probably an error. That is only true if n1 is much greater than n2, and in the absence of any experience, there's no reason to believe that. > A zip with no arguments has no universe to zip over; a listcomp without > iterators has no universe to build on... The *intent* here is to > supply a flexible and highly expressive way to build lists out of other > sequences; no other sequences, use something else. That's a reasonable argument. It might even convince me if I think about it some more. I'll think about it some more. > if you choose not to do the work anymore, you took yourself out of the > loop. You're absolutely right. I'll shut up now. (By the way, I think your mail must have gone astray, Tim -- I don't recall ever being offered ownership of a PEP, whatever that might entail.) Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+ University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a | Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. | greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz +--------------------------------------+
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4