Thanks for the summary. Here's my 1p. Thomas Wouters wrote: > >... > > Basically, what's been said is that list comprehensions as they are, are too > confusing. I haven't hear that many people say that, but not many people > objected to those that did say it, and plenty of alternative syntaxes were > proposed. I think that a lot of the confusion came with the conflation with parallel-for. Any concept is hard to follow when the syntax is changing hourly. -- Re: alternatives for listcomp: Another option is: [ <for-or-if-stmt1>: <for-or-if-stmt2>: <....>: <test> ] -- RE: parallel for: Are there any arguments AGAINST using something like zip for a parallel for-loop a function? -- 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