> > [x,y for x in (1,2,3) for y in (4,5,6)]
> Hm, I suppose the programmer meant the same as
> [(x,y) for x in (1,2,3) for y in (4,5,6)]
> Would it be really bad if we forced them to write it that way?
Strongly prefer the latter, as it permits:
[[x,y] for x in (1,2,3) for y in (4,5,6)]
(either now or in future). Would it also permit:
[{x:y} for x in (1,2,3) for y in (4,5,6)]
i.e. dict construction using list comprehension? I'd use this in quite a
few places.
> Side note: the suggested syntax here (for i in seq1 for j in seq2)
> looks like a potential alternative for the currently proposed parallel
> for loop syntax (for i in seq1; j in seq2).
>
> Only problem: the for-for variant could be mistaken by someone used to
> see nested loops as meaning the same as
>
> for i in seq1:
> for j in seq2: ...
Until yesterday's posting, I assumed that this is what for-for loops would
do, i.e. that they'd deliver a cross-product rather than one-from-each.
Was going to ask whether:
for i in seq1 and j in seq2:
foo
would be clearer, but then realized that people might assume it implied
that:
for i in seq1 or j in seq2:
foo
would also work, meaning either "while either list is non-empty" or
"cross-product".
Random thoughts,
Greg
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