On 11/22/2014 5:23 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Ron Adam <ron3...@gmail.com> wrote:
Making comprehensions work more like generator expressions
would, IMO, imply making the same change to all for loops: having a
StopIteration raised by the body of the loop quietly terminate the
loop.
I'm not suggesting making any changes to generator expressions or for loops
at all. They would continue to work like they currently do.
But if you're suggesting making list comps react to StopIteration
raised by their primary expressions, then to maintain the
correspondence between a list comp and its expanded form, for loops
would have to change too. Or should that correspondence be broken, in
that single-expression loop constructs become semantically different
from statement loop constructs?
The 2.x correspondence between list comp and for loops was *already
broken* in 3.0 by moving execution to a new function to prevent name
binding in comprehension from leaking the way they did in 2.x. We did
not change for loops to match.
The following, which is an example of equivalence in 2.7, raises in 3.4
because 'itertools' is not defined.
def binder(ns, name, ob):
ns[name] = ob
for mod in ['sys']:
binder(locals(), mod, __import__(mod))
print(sys)
[binder(locals(), mod, __import__(mod)) for mod in ['itertools']]
print(itertools)
Ceasing to leak *any* local bindings in 3.0 broke equivalence and code
depending on such bindings. Ceasing to leak StopIteration would break
equivalence a bit more, but only a bit, and code dependent on such
leakage, which I expect is extremely rare.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
