On Monday 2005-03-14 12:42, Eric Nieuwland wrote: > Gareth McCaughan wrote: > > > I'd like it, and my reason isn't "just to save typing". > > There are two reasons. > > > > 1 Some bit of my brain is convinced that [x in stuff if condition] > > is the Right Syntax and keeps making me type it even though > > I know it doesn't work. > > > > 2 Seeing [x for x in stuff if condition] triggers my internal > > duplicated-stuff alarm, and it's distracting, in the same sort > > of way as it's distracting in C or C++ seeing > > The full syntax is: > [ f(x) for x in seq if pred(x) ] > being allowed to write 'x' instead of 'identity(x)' is already a > shortcut, just as dropping the conditional part. > > Remember we're doing set theory stuff here. IMHO we should follow its > notation conventions as much as we can.
I'm well aware of what the full syntax is; being allowed to write "x" instead of "identity(x)" is *not* a "shortcut" but a perfectly straightforward unexceptional instance of the usual syntax; list comprehensions already have neither the syntax nor the semantics of set-theorists' comprehensions; and in fact no set theorist would be at all troubled by seeing { x in S : predicate(x) } which is the nearest equivalent in mathematical notation for the abbreviated comprehension expressions being discussed. Other than that, I quite agree :-). -- g _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com