"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > The question under these circumstances is then: do you want bare > genexp to mean something? Right now, it's a syntax error. But there's > no reason you couldn't have: > > y = x for x in stuff > > assign a generator object to y.
Since this was considered, there is a reason why we don't have this. As I remenber, but vaguely, Guido's reasoning was both stylistic and technical, but you'd have to check the archives for more. Terry J. Reedy -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
