André Roberge wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 5:26 PM Elliott Dehnbostel [email protected]
> wrote:
> > Hello Everyone,
> > If I've done this incorrectly, please let me know so that I can
> > improve/revise. I'm new to the Python community and quite enjoy the more
> > functional features of Python 3, but have I have a peeve about it. I'd like
> > to propose and discuss the following enhancement to Python 3:
> > Consider the following trivial for-loop:
> > chars = "abcaaabkjzhbjacvb"
> > seek = {'a','b','c'}
> > count = 0for a in chars:
> > if a in seek:
> > count += 1
> > Gross. Twice nested for a simple count.
> > count = 0
> > for a in chars:
> > count = count + 1 if a in seek else count
> > Once nested -- if nested == gross, then this is not gross. (However, I
> prefer the twice nested which I find clear and simple -- not gross.)
> André Roberge
> >
> > Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
> > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
> > Message archived at
> > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/A2PTKI...
> > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
> >
Nothing wrong with
```
for a in chars:
if a in seek:
count += 1
```
It is readable and does the job. There are other approaches that can do the job
too.
For instance,
```
len([char for char in chars if char in seek])
```
So why do we need a new syntax for this case? What does this new syntax so
special?
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/EGDK5ELS2KACDKQQ5T7MHWTKLFMM3KPQ/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
