On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 09:27:05PM -0800, Christopher Barker wrote:
> I think it's really the equivalent of
>
> for x in y:
> if not x in c:
> break
> do_stuff
>
> which to me give the proposed syntax a bit more relative strength.
Forgotten the difference between continue and break, have we? :-)
Svein (the OP) did specify continue, not break, which matches the
equivalent syntax in comprehensions.
Semantically, there is no difference between
if not condition:
continue
block
and
if condition:
block
but as of CPython 3.10, the byte-code from the first version is slightly
longer, so I imagine (but haven't measured) it will be ever-so-slightly
less efficient. (But unlikely to be meaningfully different.)
> I'm probably +0 -- but I do like comprehension syntax, and have often
> wanted a "side effect" comprehension:
Me too! I've sometimes wanted something to call a bunch of functions, or
a single function with different arguments, solely for the side-effects.
Off-topic, but since you raised the issue... is there a standard
functional programming term for a variant of map() that applies a single
argument to a series of different functions?
# regular map
map(func, list_of_args) # (func(arg) for arg in list_of_args)
# variant map?
map(arg, list_of_funcs) # (func(arg) for func in list_of_funcs)
--
Steve
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/DZYJW3AYLK5E3PMWBFC7JRVPPV4Q7SAS/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
