[Greg Ewing] > If we do this, we also need to consider whether we want > to make the corresponding change to regular for-loops. > Seems to me that all the reasons it's a good idea for > listcomps apply to for-loops as well. I expect there's no chance: unlike listcomps, for-loops allow break statements, and search loops that use the for index after a break (and out of the loop!) are common. > Another advantage of changing both together is that > we can continue to describe listcomp semantics in terms > of for-loops But I'm afraid that's also an advantage of leaving both alone. > instead of lambdas. > > Then we won't have to go into hiding until Guido dies or lifts > the fatwah against us. Death won't stop him -- he's Dutch <wink>.
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