"Gabriel Genellina" <ga.....@yaz.oo.com.ar> wrote:
>Consider this expression: g = (x+A for x in L for y in M). This is >currently expanded more or less like this: > >def foo(L): > for x in L: > for y in M: > yield x+A >g = foo(iter(L)) > >(as your example above) Note that L has a special status -- it's the only >expression evaluated at the time g is defined. It *could* have been like >this: > >def foo() > for x in L: > for y in M: > yield x+A >g = foo() > >or even like this: > >def foo(L, M, A): > for x in L: > for y in M: > yield x+A >g = foo(iter(L), iter(M), A) > >In particular, I like the 2nd (all late binding). Seems this topic was >discussed many times [1] when PEP289 [2] was proposed, and "practicality >beats purity". Ok thanks - I see where you are coming from now. It never ceases to amaze me how different we all are - Given a choice, I would have chosen the last alternative, as it feels more natural to me - the one you like feels to me as if it were too tightly coupled, somehow. - almost as if you were using named globals in a function instead of passing arguments in. But hey - I have long since learned that it is of no use to rant against the way something works, if you cannot easily change it - one can just figure out what it does, and then figure out how to use it to get it to do what one wants. Thanks for an interesting discussion. - Hendrik -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
