Paolino wrote: > why (x**2 with(x))<(x**3 with(x)) is not taken in consideration?
Looks too much like a generator expression for my taste. Also, <expr ..> syntax could be used with 'for' instead of 'with' if PEP343 poses a problem, whereas (expr for params) is identically a generator expression. > If 'with' must be there (and substitue 'lambda:') then at least the > syntax is clear.IMO Ruby syntax is also clear. I haven't used Ruby myself, but as I understand it that language allows for full anonymous blocks. Python probably doesn't want to do that. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
