On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 02:22:29PM -0700, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
> Okay, slightly off-topic, but can we *please* allow
>
> [*chunk for chunk in list_of_lists]
What would that do? The only thing I can guess it would do is the
equivalent of:
result = []
for chunk in list_of_lists:
result.append(*chunk)
which is a long and obfuscated way of saying `raise TypeError` :-)
Well, there is this:
result = []
for chunk in list_of_lists:
*temp, = chunk
result.append(temp)
which would make it an obfuscated way to spell `list(chunk)`.
> some day. I think it was left out because some discussion concluded it
> would be too confusing, which is ridiculous. I assumed it would work and
> was confused to find that it didn't. It's blatantly inconsistent.
Blatently inconsistent with what? I have no idea what you are
contrasting the non-support of sequence unpacking with. It's not this:
>>> chunk = (1, 2, 3)
>>> t = *chunk
File "<stdin>", line 1
SyntaxError: can't use starred expression here
but I can't tell what you're thinking of. Some context with sequence
unpacking that is "slightly off-topic".
--
Steve
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/SLW2NL3MWQ3QGTJAZOQV2OFXLBZCKA2T/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
