Barry A. Warsaw wrote: > Sorry, but I'm being to think that both the list comprehensions > and parallel for loops are looking pretty dodgy. I'm with Barry here (despite the public humiliation the association involves). My expectations (from examples) correlates to accompanying explanations no better than random choice. I *thought* I liked Greg Ewing's original proposal, but at this point I see syntactic salts of ammonia around one very clear idiom (nested fors) and one less intuitive but unambiguous idiom (map). I like the set notation, but there's a big impedance mismatch to Python. I'd be tempted to spell "cartesian product" as a product. To put it another way: - syntactic sugar for nested "for" loops would be nice, but there's no crying need for it - the current spelling of parallel loops is awkward and probably does warrant syntactic sugar (despite Greg Wilson's experiment that it's not what's expected). If list comprehensions are going to do *both*, the difference in how they're spelled will have to be obvious and intuitive, or we might as well just keep explaining how to use map. - Gordon
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