On 13 October 2016 at 20:51, Random832 <random...@fastmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016, at 15:46, Random832 wrote:
>> so, under a similar 'transformation', "*foo for foo in bar" likewise
>> becomes "def f(): for foo in bar: yield from foo"
>> bar = [(1, 2), (3, 4)]
>> (*(1, 2), *(3, 4)) == == tuple(f())
>> [*(1, 2), *(3, 4)] == == list(f())
> I accidentally hit ctrl-enter while copying and pasting, causing my
> message to go out while my example was less thorough than intended and
> containing syntax errors. It was intended to read as follows:
> ..."*foo for foo in bar" likewise becomes
> def f():
> for foo in bar:
> yield from foo
> a, b = (1, 2), (3, 4)
> bar = [a, b]
> (*a, *b) == (1, 2, 3, 4) == tuple(f()) # tuple(*foo for foo in bar)
> [*a, *b] == [1, 2, 3, 4] == list(f()) # [*foo for foo in bar]
I remain puzzled.
Given the well-documented and understood transformation:
[fn(x) for x in lst if cond]
result = 
for x in lst:
please can you explain how to modify that translation rule to
incorporate the suggested syntax?
Personally, I'm not even sure any more that I can *describe* the
suggested syntax. Where in [fn(x) for x in lst if cond] is the *
allowed? fn(*x)? *fn(x)? Only as *x with a bare variable, but no
expression? Only in certain restricted types of construct which aren't
expressions but are some variation on an unpacking construct?
We've had a lot of examples. I think it's probably time for someone to
describe the precise syntax (as BNF, like the syntax in the Python
and following sections) and semantics (as an explanation of how to
rewrite any syntactically valid display as a loop). It'll have to be
done in the end, as part of any implementation, so why not now?
Python-ideas mailing list
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/