> Guido> I expect that most iterator comprehensions (we need a better > Guido> term!) > > You didn't like "lazy list comprehensions"? No, because list comprehensions are no longer the fundamental building blocks. Generator expression sounds good to me now. > Guido> We can quibble about whether double parentheses are needed, ... > > You haven't convinced me that you're not going to want to toss out > one of the two comprehension syntaxes and only retain the lazy > semantics in Py3k. Too many double negatives. :-) Right now I feel like keeping both syntaxes, but declaring list comprehensions syntactic sugar for list(generator expression). > If that's the case and the current list comprehension syntax is > better than the current crop of proposals, why even add (lazy > list|iterator) comprehensions now? Just make do without them until > Py3k and make all list comprehensions lazy at that point. There > will be enough other bullets to bite that this shouldn't be a big > deal (many programs will probably require significant rewriting > anyway). It's likely that generator experssions won't make it into Python 2.x for any x, just because of the effort to get the community to accept new syntax in general. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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