On 16 October 2016 at 06:47, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Greg Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> > wrote: > > Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > > >> This thread is a huge, multi-day proof that people do not agree that > this > >> is a "reasonable" interpretation. > > > > > > So far I've seen one very vocal person who disgrees, and > > maybe one other who isn't sure. > > > > And what you're NOT seeing is a whole lot of people (myself included) > who have mostly glazed over, unsure what is and isn't reasonable, and > not clear enough on either side of the debate to weigh in. (Or not > even clear what the two sides are.) > > +1 There are lots of arguments of whether the new syntax is readable or not etc., but not so many arguments why we need this and what kind of problems it would solve. What I have learned from this megathread is that the syntax [*foo for foo in bar] is proposed as a replacement for a one-liner itertools.chain(*[foo for foo in bar]). I do not have any strong opinion on this, because I simply do not use such constructs frequently (if ever). -- Ivan
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
