skip wrote: > Fredrik> yes. >=20 > That was my initial reaction, which was why I didn't post it when I = had the > idea, only when I saw your interpretation... fwiw, the syntax implemented by the patch is the best one I've seen this far. it wasn't that syntax I had in mind when I talked about list confusions... ::: however, I think I prefer=20 [(x, x*2) for x in seq] over [x, x*2 for x in seq] (it doesn't only help me scan it, it also simplifies a piece of code that I happen to have here...) the bot says +0. </F>
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