At 07:41 AM 10/17/03 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: >I'd just like to pipe into this discussion saying that while Peter >Norvig's pre-PEP is neat, I'd reject it if it were a PEP; the main >reason that the proposed notation doesn't return a list. I agree that >having generator comprehensions would be a more general solution. I >don't have a proposal for generator comprehension syntax though, and >[yield ...] has the same problem. (yield x*2 for x in foo) or maybe: (yield: x*2 for x in foo) would "yield" better visibility that this is a value that *does* something (like lambda). Or perhaps without the parentheses, but I think they're better for clarity, and I'd add them in practice even if they weren't required. The main problem with a gencomp syntax is that some people are going to use it for everything whether they need it or not, even when they have a small list and the frame overhead for the generator is going to make it slower. So it almost wants to be a really awkward ugly thing in order to discourage them... but then again, that way lies Ruby. :)
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