Tim: > Needs a PEP, and possibly > even an associated future-statement. Overall, I'm more in favor of changing > it than not. If we do this, we also need to consider whether we want to make the corresponding change to regular for-loops. Seems to me that all the reasons it's a good idea for listcomps apply to for-loops as well. Another advantage of changing both together is that we can continue to describe listcomp semantics in terms of for-loops instead of lambdas. Then we won't have to go into hiding until Guido dies or lifts the fatwah against us. Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+ University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a | Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. | greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz +--------------------------------------+
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