Greg Wilson <gvwilson@nevex.com>: > > 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. This seems like the natural interpretation to me, also. I therefore prefer the semicolon sequence. -- <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr">Eric S. Raymond</a> To stay young requires the unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods. -- Lazarus Long
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