On Mon, Oct 17, 2016, at 16:12, Paul Moore wrote:
> And finally, no-one has even *tried* to explain why we need a third
> way of expressing this construction. Nick made this point, and
> basically got told that his condition was too extreme. He essentially
> got accused of constructing an impossible test. And yet it's an
> entirely fair test, and one that's applied regularly to proposals -
> and many *do* pass the test.

As the one who made that accusation, my objection was specifically to
the word "always" - which was emphasized - and which is something that I
don't believe is actually a component of the test that is normally
applied. His words, specifically, were "a compelling argument needs to
be presented that the new spelling is *always* preferable to the
existing ones"

List comprehensions themselves aren't even always preferable to loops.
Python-ideas mailing list
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Reply via email to