> Thomas Wouters wrote:
> I still think
>
> 'for x in a; y in b:'
>
> is the right syntax for parallel for loops. It's almost "only"
> syntactic sugar for
>
> 'for x,y in map(None, a, b)'
>
> but it's fairly straightforward, and in large blocks of code it might
> look a lot better.
Is there a built-in function in Python to combine sequences elementwise?
If I can write:
for x,y in pairwise(a, b):
foo(x,y)
and if the compiler is smart enough to avoid actually constructing the
pairwise list, then perhaps new syntax is unnecessary?
> Given that you can already do the nested-for-loop with a nested for
> loop, and it doesn't suffer (much) in way of readability or pythonity,
> I think most people will realize that the parallel for loop does
> actually do a parallel for-each.
I disagree. That doesn't mean people can't be taught/won't remember that
multi-loops are executed in step, rather that by cross product, but I
believe most people will guess wrong the first time they see the current
notation.
Thanks,
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