Calvin Spealman wrote:
> I'm sure this has been brought up before, either for Py3K or in
> previous development, so just let me know if its already been
> shotdown. Maybe even give it a second thought.
>
> for i in some_list in some_list_of_lists:
> do_something_with(i)
>
> Currently, this is passed iterating over the results of (some_list in
> some_list_of_lists), which shouldn't ever reveal an iterable result,
> so is there any danger in making the for loops, listcomps, and genexps
> take special meaning to this chaining of iterators?
>
> This might even remove a great number of the ever-repeating "Why isn't
> there a standard flatten function?" debates, because it would provide
> a simple, intuitive, understandable base for most any way you would
> want to flatten things.
Unfortunately this "simple, intuitive, understandable base" is wrong for the
same reason most naive flattening functions are wrong - flattening operations
typically want to treat strings as atomic data rather than as a container
(although a previous experiment with making strings not behave like a
container at all for Py3k showed that to be even *more* inconvenient).
If you really want something like this, you can already use a genexp to
similar effect:
for i in (some_list for some_list in some_list_of_lists):
do_something_with(i)
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
_______________________________________________
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
