On 16 October 2016 at 03:17, Random832 <random...@fastmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 15, 2016, at 06:38, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> > Replacing it _with the items_ is not the same thing as replacing it >> > _with a sequence containing the items_, >> >> I don't think I ever used the phrasing "a sequence containing the >> items". I think that's *your* phrase, not mine. > > It's not your phrasing, it's the actual semantic content of your claim > that it would have to wrap them in a tuple. > >> The core developers have made it absolutely clear that changing the >> fundamental equivalence of list comps as syntactic sugar for: >> >> result = [] >> for t in iterable: >> result.append(t) >> >> >> is NOT NEGOTIABLE. > > I've never heard of this. It certainly never came up in this discussion.
It's not negotiable, and that most recently came up just a few weeks ago: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2016-September/042602.html > And it was negotiable just fine when they got rid of the leaked loop > variable. We wrapped it in a nested function scope without otherwise changing the syntactic equivalence, and only after generator expressions already introduced the notion of using a nested scope (creating Python 2's scoping discrepancy between "[x for x in iterable]" and "list(x for x in iterable)", which was eliminated in Python 3). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
