Then what about [x for x in (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 66, 7, 8, 9, 10) while x < 10 if x % 2 == 0]
Seems it should be valid and [0, 2, 4]. On Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 14:06 Jussi Piitulainen, < jussi.piitulai...@helsinki.fi> wrote: > Steve D'Aprano writes: > > > 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? > > > > [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] > > > How about these? > > > > [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] > -- > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > -- Oliver My StackOverflow contributions My CodeProject articles My Github projects My SourceForget.net projects -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
