On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > List comprehensions' problems is that we cannot find a syntax that we all > > agree is readable. Perhaps the answer is not list comprehensions, but > > lexical scoping combined with steroid versions of map and filter, together > > with zip to bind things together. > > I'm about 3000 messages behind in that particular discussion. I still > really like Greg Ewing's original syntax: > > [x for x in seq] I think the main problem with this syntax was that there is no seperator between the expression and the "for". Not a parser issue, but a human one: the same reason there is a colon after the "if" keyword. Now, [x; for x in seq] and [x: for x in seq] each had their objections. These will all probably be in the PEP, so I'll shut up now. > [x+y for x in seq1 for y in seq2] > [x for x in seq if pred(x)] > [x, x*2 for x in seq] And what about [x+y for x in seq1 for y in seq2 if y>2 if x<3] or [x+y for x in seq1 if x<3 for y in seq2 if y>2] What is allowed? Aren't we being a bit too TIMTOWTDIish here? (From there on, the discussion diverged) -- Moshe Zadka <moshez@math.huji.ac.il> There is no IGLU cabal. http://advogato.org/person/moshez
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