RetroSearch Browse

Sat Feb 24 01:04:45 EST 2018 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2018-February/152278.html

On Feb 23, 2018 9:26 PM, "Steven D'Aprano" <steve at pearwood.info> wrote:

Given a potentially expensive DRY violation like:

    [(function(x), function(x)+1) for x in sequence]

there are at least five ways to solve it.

A 6th way is to wrap the expensive function in @lru_cache() to make it
non-expensive.

    [(a, a+1) for x in sequence for a in [function(x)]]

It's funny to me how many people, even the BDFL, have said this is tricky
to reason about or recognize. I didn't think of it all by myself, but saw
it somewhere years ago. It seemed obvious once I saw it. Since then it's
something I do occasionally in my code without much need for thought.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20180223/b7f47519/attachment.html>

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2018-February/152278.html below:

[Python-Dev] The `for y in [x]` idiom in comprehensions