On 10 Feb 2015 19:41, "Paul Moore" <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I agree completely with Donald here. The comprehension syntax has > consistently been the part of the proposal that has resulted in > confused questions from reviewers, and I don't think it's at all > intuitive. > > Is it allowable to vote on parts of the PEP separately? If not, then > the comprehension syntax is enough for me to reject the whole > proposal. If we can look at parts in isolation, I'm OK with saying -1 > to the comprehension syntax and then we can look at whether the other > parts of the PEP add enough to be worth it (the comprehension side is > enough of a distraction that I haven't really considered the other > bits yet).
It occurs to me that the PEP effectively changes the core of a generator expression from "yield x" to "yield from x" if the tuple expansion syntax is used. If we rejected the "yield *x" syntax for standalone yield expressions, I don't think it makes sense to now add it for generator expressions. So I guess that adds me to the -1 camp on the comprehension/generator expression part of the story - it doesn't make things all that much easier to write than the relevant nested loop, and it makes them notably harder to read. I haven't formed an opinion on the rest of the PEP yet, as it's been a while since I read the full text. I'll read through the latest version tomorrow. Regards, Nick. > > Paul > _______________________________________________ > 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/ncoghlan%40gmail.com
_______________________________________________ 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
