Greg Stein wrote: > > Looks like all of us scrappy long-hairs are in this together. :-) > > As I posted in another note: this stuff introduces too much confusion and > unknowns, for a small benefit. Create parallel() or product() or whatever to > munge the lists. Not new syntax. Parallel iteration and list comprehensions are separate. I do prefer a parallel() (merge?) builtin to the semicolon syntax, myself. You could even define xparallel which is the lazy version (as in xrange). There's no way you are going to invent functions that do everything that list comprehensions do, however. And compared to map and filter, list comprehensions are positively crystal clear. Would it help to think of list comprehensions not so much as a vote for a new idea as a vote AGAINST lambda, map and filter? numbers = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] mult3 = [3 * x for x in numbers] evens = [x for x in numbers if x % 2 == 0] numbers = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] mult3 = map( lambda x: 3 * x, numbers) evens = filter( lambda x: x%2==0, numbers) -- Paul Prescod - Not encumbered by corporate consensus Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. - http://www.cs.yale.edu/~perlis-alan/quotes.html
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