On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 05:14:54AM +0000, Neil Girdhar wrote: [Steven (me), refering to Greg] > > Because as your own email inadvertently reinforces, if sequence > > unpacking made sense in the context of a list comprehension, it would > > already be allowed rather than a SyntaxError: it is intentionally > > prohibited because it doesn't make sense in the context of list comps. > > > Whoa, hang on a second there. It is intentionally prohibited because > Joshua Landau (who helped a lot with writing and implementing the PEP) and > I felt like there was going to be a long debate and we wanted to get PEP > 448 checked in. > > If it "didn't make sense" as you say, then we would have said so in the > PEP. Instead, Josh wrote: > > This was met with a mix of strong concerns about readability and mild > support. In order not to disadvantage the less controversial aspects of the > PEP, this was not accepted with the rest of the proposal.
Okay, interesting, and thanks for the correction. > I don't remember who it was who had those strong concerns (maybe you?) But > that's why we didn't include it. I'm pretty sure it wasn't me. I don't recall being involved at all with any discussions about PEP 448, and a quick search has failed to come up with anything relevant. I think I sat that one out. -- Steve _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
