Guido van Rossum wrote: >> Slightly too late for consideration, I did come up with >> what I believe is a backwards-compatible syntax extension >> to support this: >> >> for (x in iter1, y in iter2): >> ...
[...] > Based on the feedback so far I think not. There's also the issue that > > for (x in A, y in B): > > could just as well be meant as a shortcut for > > for x in A: > for y in B: > > The proposed syntax doesn't quite jive with my guts, and the issue of > "what to do if they are of unequal length" is a good one, which is > better solved by being explicit and using zip (== izip). > > Finally (maybe this is why it doesn't jive :-) it seems to me that > separating the variables is *worse* than > > for x, y in zip(A, B): > > because the latter emphasizes that you get a new x and a new y at the same > time. I agree. A related issue is, when map() is gone, could zip() grow a keyword argument, say, 'extend' so that map(None, A, B) translates to zip(A, B, extend=None)? zip(A, B, extend=0) would fill with 0 etc. Georg
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
