[Delaney, Timothy] > > From: Brett Cannon [mailto:bac@OCF.Berkeley.EDU] > > [Delaney, Timothy] > > In particular, I tend to produce a lot of filtering functions (whether run > through list comps, filter or just standalone) and this is one place where > this syntax would be useful. Of course, that presupposes that at least *one* > value passes the filter ... but surely a failure there would be a data error > ;) > But is it that big of a deal to just take the [1:] index of something instead of using this suggested addition? And yes, it is always a data error. =) > > concise code and I want to keep the LHS of the assignment simple. But > > then again that might be a bias coming from a right-handed person. =) > > Nah - I'm right-handed too, but I've got nothing against the LHS. > Damn. Would have been nice if that argument held up. > The major point I have against it is that you would presumably have > duplication in: > > a = t > *a = t > > unless that were special-cased. I personally think it should be syntactially > correct if the proposal were to be accepted, but with a strong suggestion in > the documentation that it be avoided ;) > Yes, it should be correct if the change is accepted. But what are the chances that people will actually read the note advising against it? =) -Brett
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