On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 14:08, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > What I remember you saying was that it was an unfortunate but necessary
> > consequence so that it would work the same as
> >
> > L = []
> > for x in R:
> > L.append(x)
> > print x
> >
> > You didn't want to have different semantics for two such similar
> > constructs ("there's only one way"). You also didn't want to push a
> > stack frame for listcomps.
>
> Then I guess I *have* changed my mind. I guess I didn't think of the
> renaming solution way back when.
Not to make a big deal out of it, but I just checked on the first report
of this problem that I remember. David Beazley reported this problem on
python-dev a couple of years ago and suggested the renaming solution.
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2001-May/015089.html
I'm sure we talked about the problem, but since I was talking I probably
said something about a nested scopes solution <0.3 wink>. In that
thread, Tim did some effective channeling and said the day you approved
a solution based on lambda was the day you'd kill us all.
Jeremy
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