Hi everyone,
The patch is ready for review now, and I should have time this week to make
changes and respond to comments.
Best,
Neil
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote:
> I'm back, I've re-read the PEP, and I've re-read the long thread with "(no
> subject)".
>
> I think Georg Brandl nailed it:
>
> """
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *I like the "sequence and dict flattening" part of the PEP, mostly because
> itis consistent and should be easy to understand, but the comprehension
> syntaxenhancements seem to be bad for readability and "comprehending" what
> the codedoes.The call syntax part is a mixed bag on the one hand it is nice
> to be consistent with the extended possibilities in literals (flattening),
> but on the other hand there would be small but annoying inconsistencies
> anyways (e.g. the duplicate kwarg case above).*
> """
>
> Greg Ewing followed up explaining that the inconsistency between dict
> flattening and call syntax is inherent in the pre-existing different rules
> for dicts vs. keyword args: {'a':1, 'a':2} results in {'a':2}, while f(a=1,
> a=2) is an error. (This form is a SyntaxError; the dynamic case f(a=1,
> **{'a': 1}) is a TypeError.)
>
> For me, allowing f(*a, *b) and f(**d, **e) and all the other combinations
> for function calls proposed by the PEP is an easy +1 -- it's a
> straightforward extension of the existing pattern, and anybody who knows
> what f(x, *a) does will understand f(x, *a, y, *b). Guessing what f(**d,
> **e) means shouldn't be hard either. Understanding the edge case for
> duplicate keys with f(**d, **e) is a little harder, but the error messages
> are pretty clear, and it is not a new edge case.
>
> The sequence and dict flattening syntax proposals are also clean and
> logical -- we already have *-unpacking on the receiving side, so allowing
> *x in tuple expressions reads pretty naturally (and the similarity with *a
> in argument lists certainly helps). From here, having [a, *x, b, *y] is
> also natural, and then the extension to other displays is natural: {a, *x,
> b, *y} and {a:1, **d, b:2, **e}. This, too, gets a +1 from me.
>
> So that leaves comprehensions. IIRC, during the development of the patch
> we realized that f(*x for x in xs) is sufficiently ambiguous that we
> decided to disallow it -- note that f(x for x in xs) is already somewhat of
> a special case because an argument can only be a "bare" generator
> expression if it is the only argument. The same reasoning doesn't apply (in
> that form) to list, set and dict comprehensions -- while f(x for x in xs)
> is identical in meaning to f((x for x in xs)), [x for x in xs] is NOT the
> same as [(x for x in xs)] (that's a list of one element, and the element is
> a generator expression).
>
> The basic premise of this part of the proposal is that if you have a few
> iterables, the new proposal (without comprehensions) lets you create a list
> or generator expression that iterates over all of them, essentially
> flattening them:
>
> >>> xs = [1, 2, 3]
> >>> ys = ['abc', 'def']
> >>> zs = [99]
> >>> [*xs, *ys, *zs]
> [1, 2, 3, 'abc', 'def', 99]
> >>>
>
> But now suppose you have a list of iterables:
>
> >>> xss = [[1, 2, 3], ['abc', 'def'], [99]]
> >>> [*xss[0], *xss[1], *xss[2]]
> [1, 2, 3, 'abc', 'def', 99]
> >>>
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if you could write the latter using a comprehension?
>
> >>> xss = [[1, 2, 3], ['abc', 'def'], [99]]
> >>> [*xs for xs in xss]
> [1, 2, 3, 'abc', 'def', 99]
> >>>
>
> This is somewhat seductive, and the following is even nicer: the *xs
> position may be an expression, e.g.:
>
> >>> xss = [[1, 2, 3], ['abc', 'def'], [99]]
> >>> [*xs[:2] for xs in xss]
> [1, 2, 'abc', 'def', 99]
> >>>
>
> On the other hand, I had to explore the possibilities here by
> experimenting in the interpreter, and I discovered some odd edge cases
> (e.g. you can parenthesize the starred expression, but that seems a
> syntactic accident).
>
> All in all I am personally +0 on the comprehension part of the PEP, and I
> like that it provides a way to "flatten" a sequence of sequences, but I
> think very few people in the thread have supported this part. Therefore I
> would like to ask Neil to update the PEP and the patch to take out the
> comprehension part, so that the two "easy wins" can make it into Python 3.5
> (basically, I am accepting two-thirds of the PEP :-). There is some time
> yet until alpha 2.
>
> I would also like code reviewers (Benjamin?) to start reviewing the patch
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue2292>, taking into account that the
> comprehension part needs to be removed.
>
> --
> --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
>
>
_______________________________________________
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
