Greg Wilson wrote:
>
> I've spoken with Barbara Fuller (IPC9 org.); the two openings for a
> BOF on sets are breakfast or lunch on Wednesday the 7th. I'd prefer
> breakfast (less chance of me missing my flight :-); is there anyone
> who's interested in attending who *can't* make that time, but *could*
> make lunch?
Depends on the time frame of "breakfast" ;-)
> And meanwhile:
>
> > Ka-Ping Yee:
> > - the key:value syntax suggested by Guido (i like it quite a lot)
>
> Greg Wilson:
> Did another quick poll; feeling here is that if
>
> for key:value in dict:
>
> works, then:
>
> for index:value in sequence:
>
> would also be expected to work. If the keys to the dictionary are (for
> example) 2-element tuples, then:
>
> for (left, right):value in dict:
>
> would also be expected to work, just as:
>
> for ((left, right), value) in dict.items():
>
> now works.
>
> Question: would the current proposal allow NumPy arrays (just as an
> example) to support both:
>
> for index:value in numPyArray:
>
> where 'index' would get tuples like '(0, 3, 2)' for a 3D array, *and*
>
> for (i, j, k):value in numPyArray:
>
> If so, then yeah, it would tidy up a fair bit of my code...
Two things:
1. the proposed syntax key:value does away with the
easy to parse Python block statement syntax
2. why can't we use the old 'for x,y,z in something:' syntax
and instead add iterators to the objects in question ?
for key, value in object.iterator():
...
this doesn't only look better, it also allows having different
iterators for different tasks (e.g. to iterate over values, key,
items, row in a matrix, etc.)
--
Marc-Andre Lemburg
______________________________________________________________________
Company: http://www.egenix.com/
Consulting: 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