On 14/10/2016 07:00, Greg Ewing wrote:
Neil Girdhar wrote:
At the end of this discussion it might be good to get a tally of how many people think the proposal is reasonable and logical.

I think it's reasonable and logical.

I concur.  Two points I personally find in favour, YMMV:
(1) [*subseq for subseq in seq] avoids the "conceptual hiatus" I described earlier in [elt for subseq in seq for elt in subseq] (I.e. I think the case for the proposal would be weaker if the loops in a list comprehension were written in reverse order.) (2) This is admittedly a somewhat tangential argument, but: I didn't really know what "yield from" meant. But when I read in an earlier post that someone had proposed "yield *" for it, I had a Eureka moment. Which suggests if "*" is used to mean some sort of unpacking in more contexts, the more familiar and intuitive it may become. I guess the word I'm groping for is 'consistency'.
Rob Cliffe
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Reply via email to