# Re: Proposed new syntax

```On 08/10/2017 04:28 PM, Steve D'Aprano wrote:
```
```Every few years, the following syntax comes up for discussion, with some people
saying it isn't obvious what it would do, and others disagreeing and saying
that it is obvious. So I thought I'd do an informal survey.```
```
What would you expect this syntax to return?
```
```
```
As one of the people who have suggested this or similar syntax once I hope I'm not too far off a potential consensus :)
```
```
```
[x + 1 for x in (0, 1, 2, 999, 3, 4) while x < 5]

```
```
[1, 2, 3]

```
```
For comparison, what would you expect this to return? (Without actually trying
it, thank you.)

[x + 1 for x in (0, 1, 2, 999, 3, 4) if x < 5]

```
```
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

```
```

[x + y for x in (0, 1, 2, 999, 3, 4) while x < 5 for y in (100, 200)]

```
```
[100, 200, 101, 201, 102, 202]

```
```[x + y for x in (0, 1, 2, 999, 3, 4) if x < 5 for y in (100, 200)]

```
```
[100, 200, 101, 201, 102, 202, 103, 203, 104, 204]

```
```
```