[Guido]
> This is all PEP material now.
Yup.
> Tim, do you want to own the PEP?
Not really. Available time is finite, and this isn't at the top of the list
of things I'd like to see (resuming the discussion of generators +
coroutines + iteration protocol comes to mind first).
>> Cool! Can we resist adding
>>
>> if key:value in dict
>>
>> for "parallelism"? (I know I can ...)
> That's easy to resist because, unlike ``for key:value in dict'', it's
> not unambiguous:
But
if (key:value) in dict
is. Just trying to help whoever *does* want the PEP <wink>.
> ...
> I'm certainly more comfortable with just ``for key in dict'' than with
> the whole slow of extensions using colons.
What about just the
for key:value in dict
for index:value in sequence
extensions? The degenerate forms (omitting x or y or both in x:y) are
mechanical variations so are likely to get raised.
> But, again, that's for the PEP to fight over.
PEPs are easier if you Pronounce on things you hate early so that those can
get recorded in the "BDFL Pronouncements" section without further ado.
whatever-this-may-look-like-it's-not-a-pep-discussion<wink>-ly y'rs - tim
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