FWIW, the nested loop over a single item is already in the language for 15
years or something. It's not that ugly, certainly not enough to need a new
'let' or 'where' keyword that basically does exactly the same thing with 3
fewer characters.
On Feb 23, 2018 10:04 PM, David Mertz <me...@gnosis.cx> wrote:
On Feb 23, 2018 9:26 PM, "Steven D'Aprano" <st...@pearwood.info> wrote:
Given a potentially expensive DRY violation like:
[(function(x), function(x)+1) for x in sequence]
there are at least five ways to solve it.
A 6th way is to wrap the expensive function in @lru_cache() to make it
non-expensive.
[(a, a+1) for x in sequence for a in [function(x)]]
It's funny to me how many people, even the BDFL, have said this is tricky
to reason about or recognize. I didn't think of it all by myself, but saw
it somewhere years ago. It seemed obvious once I saw it. Since then it's
something I do occasionally in my code without much need for thought.
_______________________________________________
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
