Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>
> mal wrote:
> > Wouldn't it make much more sense to write something
> > more lambda function like, e.g.
> >
> > [for (x,y) in zip([10,20,30], [1,2,3]): x+y]
> >
> > or
> >
> > [for x in range(100): x*2]
>
> fwiw, I read that as:
>
> [
> for x in range(100):
> x * 2
> ]
>
> which makes no sense at all.
Why doesn't that make sense ? Is this just a gut feeling
or explainable ?
IMHO, the meaning of the differen parts is intuitively
understandable from the fact that Python's standard "for"
notation works in the same way.
OTOH, the notation "x*2 for x in range(100)" looks strange to me
and probably to others too, because it doesn't make clear what "x"
really refers to until you read on... this is Python not Forth or
Haskell !
BTW, is it the missing append operator (the one that pushes
x*2 onto the list) that's bothering you ?
Note that we could also extend the above by allowing multiple
such constructs separated by commas:
data = (1.3, 1.2, 1.1)
l = [for x in data: 3*x,
for x in data: x/10]
--
Marc-Andre Lemburg
______________________________________________________________________
Business: http://www.lemburg.com/
Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
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