>>>>> "TW" == Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> writes:
TW> I agree that all this together looks dodgy, but I think there
TW> is a simple way to view it... I still think
TW> 'for x in a; y in b:'
TW> is the right syntax for parallel for loops. It's almost "only"
TW> syntactic sugar for
TW> 'for x,y in map(None, a, b)'
But wouldn't some variation on
for x, y in a, b:
invoke resonance with the classic idiom? Okay, now I'm reduced to
arguing syntax (and syntax which I haven't thought out much :).
TW> but it's fairly straightforward, and in large blocks of code
TW> it might look a lot better. It also has the benifit of not
TW> padding the shortest list to the size of the longest one:
TW> getting that behaviour with a map requires an aditional
TW> 'filter' or such.
So I guess if that's the behavior I want, I'd use map, right? There's
probably no good way to spell both.
-Barry
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