On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Random832 <random...@fastmail.com> wrote:
> Once again, this alleged simplicity relies on the chosen example "x for > x" rather than "f(x) for x" - this one doesn't even put the use of > flatten in the right place to be generalized to the more complex cases. > You'd need list(flatten(f(x) for x in iterable)) > What you're saying is EXACTLY 180 deg reversed from the truth. It's *precisely* because it doesn't need the extra complication that `flatten()` is more flexible and powerful. I have no idea what your example is meant to do, but the actual correspondence is: [f(x) for x in flatten(it)] Under my proposed "more flexible recursion levels" idea, it could even be: [f(x) for x in flatten(it, levels=3)] There would simply be NO WAY to get that out of the * comprehension syntax at all. But a decent flatten() function gets all the flexibility. > Honestly, it goes beyond just being "wrong". The repeated refusal to > even acknowledge any equivalence between [...x... for x in [a, b, c]] > and [...a..., ...b..., ...c...] truly makes it difficult for me to > accept some people's _sincerity_. > I am absolutely sincere in disliking and finding hard-to-teach this novel use of * in comprehensions. Yours, David... P.S. It's very artificial to assume user are unable to use 'from itertools import chain' to try to make chain() seem more cumbersome than it is. Likewise, I would like flatten() in itertools, but I assume the usual pattern would be importing the function itself. -- Keeping medicines from the bloodstreams of the sick; food from the bellies of the hungry; books from the hands of the uneducated; technology from the underdeveloped; and putting advocates of freedom in prisons. Intellectual property is to the 21st century what the slave trade was to the 16th.
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
