RetroSearch Browse

Mon Oct 20 02:28:57 EDT 2003 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-October/039047.html

On Monday 20 October 2003 02:45 am, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Raymond Hettinger <python at rcn.com>:
> > Is Phil's syntax acceptable to everyone?
> >
> >      (yield:  x*x for x in roots)
>
> I could probably live with it, but it would be
> so much nicer if the "yield" could be dispensed
> with.

I've changed my mind, too, btw (pondering on Guido's last msg on the subject):
mandatory parentheses but no "yield:" would be quite fine.  I realized I 
didn't bother to say so because of Guido's prediction (no pronouncement yet) 
that this issue will anyway die "like the ternary operator" -- I focused on 
that one rather than on the detail of _what_ syntax exactly should be NOT 
adopted:-).

Alex

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-October/039047.html below:

[Python-Dev] generator comprehension syntax, was: accumulator display syntax