On 12 October 2016 at 23:58, Sven R. Kunze <srku...@mail.de> wrote:
> Reading PEP448 it seems to me that it's already been considered:
> The reason for not-inclusion were about concerns about acceptance because of
> "strong concerns about readability" but also received "mild support". I
> think your post strengthens the support given that you "expected it to just
> work". This shows at least to me that the concerns about
> readability/understandability are not justified much.
Readability isn't about "Do some people guess the same semantics for
what it would mean?", as when there are only a few plausible
interpretations, all the possibilities are going to get a respectable
number of folks picking them as reasonable behaviour.
Instead, readability is about:
- Do people consistently guess the *same* interpretation?
- Is that interpretation consistent with other existing uses of the syntax?
- Is it more readily comprehensible than existing alternatives, or is
it brevity for brevity's sake?
This particular proposal fails on the first question (as too many
people would expect it to mean the same thing as either "[*expr, for
expr in iterable]" or "[*(expr for expr in iterable)]"), but it fails
on the other two grounds as well.
In most uses of *-unpacking it's adding entries to a comma-delimited
sequence, or consuming entries in a comma delimited sequence (the
commas are optional in some cases, but they're still part of the
relevant contexts). The expansions removed the special casing of
functions, and made these capabilities generally available to all
sequence definition operations.
Comprehensions and generator expressions, by contrast, dispense with
the comma delimited format entirely, and instead use a format inspired
by mathematical set builder notation (just modified to use keywords
and Python expressions rather than symbols and mathematical
However, set builder notation doesn't inherently include the notion of
flattening lists-of-lists. Instead, that's a *consumption* operation
that happens externally after the initial list-of-lists has been
built, and that's exactly how it's currently spelled in Python:
"itertools.chain.from_iterable(subiter for subiter in iterable)".
Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
Python-ideas mailing list
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/