On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:34:10 -0500 "Raymond Hettinger" <python at rcn.com> wrote: > I do not view genexps as "convenient" short-forms for > real generators. > Instead, they represent memory/resource friendly versions > of list comps > which have been fabulously successful and have helped > move us away from > map/lambda forms. I believe they will make the language > more fluid, > cohesive, and expressive. It would be great to revise some existing code to use generator expressions. I find it hard to judge their effect, but am inclined to agree with you. I like list comprehensions a lot. > In deciding on semantics, we would all rather trade away > some power in > exchange for greater clarity about what the expression > will do without > having to run it. Put another way, human > interpretability is more > important than supporting weird usages. With that > criteria, > early-binding is looking to be least nuanced approach. If readability counts, I think the standard binding rules make the most sense. The examples I've seen that depend on differences in binding all seem like edge cases to me. I don't expect generator expressions in for loops will be a common usage. Put another way, in the cases where it matters, I don't expect either option to be ovious or intuitive. If there's no obvious solution, I'd rather see the consistent one. Jeremy
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