On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 13:22:28 -0400, "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"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 h
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 02:12:07 -0500, Mike Meyer wrote:
> Right. But that shouldn't be hard to do. Let genexp stand for a a
> generator expression/list comprehension without any brackets on it at all.
> Then [genexp] is the syntax to expand the list. [(genexp)] is the syntax
> to create a list of one
Mike Meyer wrote:
> 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
I like
y = (x for x in stuff)
as it is, it's way more readable.
Reinhold
--
"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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bengt Richter) writes:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:48:46 -0400, Bill Mill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>+1 . I think that we should still have the form [genexp] , but without
>>the dangling variable, and implemented with generator expressions. It
>>seems to me that it is inconsisten
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:48:46 -0400, Bill Mill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 25 Apr 2005 23:33:48 +0300, Ville Vainio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "Jeremy" =3D=3D Jeremy Bowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>=20
>> Jeremy> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:59:12 -0700, Robert Kern wrote:
>> >>
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:00:57 -0500, Mike Meyer wrote:
> Why do we have to wait for Python 3.0 for this? Couldn't list
> comprehensions and generator expression be unified without breaking
> existing code that didn't deserve to be broken?
We don't; my mentioning 3.0 was just in reference to a previ
Jeremy Bowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:48:46 -0400, Bill Mill wrote:
> generalizing anyways, which is the right approach. I doubt that Python 3.0
> would have two radically different implementations; they'll just have the
> genexp implementation, and an optimization for
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:48:46 -0400, Bill Mill wrote:
> On 25 Apr 2005 23:33:48 +0300, Ville Vainio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Still, list comprehensions should be implemented in terms of genexps to
>> get rid of the LC variable that is visible outside the scope of the LC.
>>
>>
> +1 . I thin
On 25 Apr 2005 23:33:48 +0300, Ville Vainio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Jeremy" == Jeremy Bowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jeremy> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:59:12 -0700, Robert Kern wrote:
> >> Never. If you really need a list
> >>
> >> list(x*x for x in xrange(10))
>
> "Jeremy" == Jeremy Bowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jeremy> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:59:12 -0700, Robert Kern wrote:
>> Never. If you really need a list
>>
>> list(x*x for x in xrange(10))
>>
>> Sadly, we can't remove list comprehensions until 3.0.
Jeremy> Why
Jeremy Bowers wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:59:12 -0700, Robert Kern wrote:
Never. If you really need a list
list(x*x for x in xrange(10))
Sadly, we can't remove list comprehensions until 3.0.
Why "remove" them? Instead, we have these things called "comprehensions"
(which, now that I say that, see
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:59:12 -0700, Robert Kern wrote:
> Never. If you really need a list
>
> list(x*x for x in xrange(10))
>
> Sadly, we can't remove list comprehensions until 3.0.
Why "remove" them? Instead, we have these things called "comprehensions"
(which, now that I say that, seems a rath
Mike Meyer wrote:
jfj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I think a better question would be "What do *generator expressions* do
that list comprehensions don't?". And always use list comprehensions
unless you want the extra bit.
As the OP, I can say why I didn't ask those questions.
Sorry. I was referri
jfj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think a better question would be "What do *generator expressions* do
> that list comprehensions don't?". And always use list comprehensions
> unless you want the extra bit.
As the OP, I can say why I didn't ask those questions.
Generator expressions don't bui
jfj wrote:
Robert Kern wrote:
jfj wrote:
2) to convert a list/tuple/string to a list, which is
done extremely fast.
Add "any iteratable". Genexps are iterables.
The thing is that when you want to convert a tuple to a list
you know already the size of it and you can avoid using append()
and expandin
Robert Kern wrote:
jfj wrote:
2) to convert a list/tuple/string to a list, which is
done extremely fast.
Add "any iteratable". Genexps are iterables.
The thing is that when you want to convert a tuple to a list
you know already the size of it and you can avoid using append()
and expanding the list
I jfj wrote:
make_fractal_with_seed (x for x in range(1) if fibonacci_prime
(x))
and this is stupendus.
At least range should be xrange.
jfj
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
jfj wrote:
Robert Kern wrote:
Mike Meyer wrote:
Ok, we've added list comprehensions to the language, and seen that
they were good. We've added generator expressions to the language, and
seen that they were good as well.
I'm left a bit confused, though - when would I use a list comp instead
of a gen
Robert Kern wrote:
Mike Meyer wrote:
Ok, we've added list comprehensions to the language, and seen that
they were good. We've added generator expressions to the language, and
seen that they were good as well.
I'm left a bit confused, though - when would I use a list comp instead
of a generator expr
Steven Bethard wrote:
Robert Kern wrote:
Mike Meyer wrote:
Ok, we've added list comprehensions to the language, and seen that
they were good. We've added generator expressions to the language, and
seen that they were good as well.
I'm left a bit confused, though - when would I use a list comp inste
Robert Kern wrote:
Mike Meyer wrote:
Ok, we've added list comprehensions to the language, and seen that
they were good. We've added generator expressions to the language, and
seen that they were good as well.
I'm left a bit confused, though - when would I use a list comp instead
of a generator expr
Mike Meyer wrote:
Ok, we've added list comprehensions to the language, and seen that
they were good. We've added generator expressions to the language, and
seen that they were good as well.
I'm left a bit confused, though - when would I use a list comp instead
of a generator expression if I'm going
Ok, we've added list comprehensions to the language, and seen that
they were good. We've added generator expressions to the language, and
seen that they were good as well.
I'm left a bit confused, though - when would I use a list comp instead
of a generator expression if I'm going to require 2.4 a
24 matches
Mail list logo
