Paul Rubin wrote:
[Paul proves his superior Lisp knowledge]Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Perhaps because we don't all have your psychic powers?
You snipped out the examples I gave, like [x*x for x in range(5)] leaving unnecessary residue in the name space. Was it not obvious from the beginning that that was a kludge? If it was obviously a kludge, was it not obvious that there would be reason to want to fix it someday? I'm saying that if some new feature is going to need a fix later, it's better to fix it before releasing it in the first place.
Well no, I certainly have never thought the name droppings from list comprehensions to be anything other than a wart.
But my parting shot was simply to point out that you don't always know where you're going until you're at least part of the way there. Until the feature exists, how do you know it needs fixing?
The fact that a bright bunch like the Python developers didn't realize that it would be sensible to have a local scope for the list comprehension variable is a perfect demonstration of that point.
regards Steve -- Steve Holden http://www.holdenweb.com/ Python Web Programming http://pydish.holdenweb.com/ Holden Web LLC +1 703 861 4237 +1 800 494 3119 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
