On 5/1/20 9:19 AM, silverback...@gmail.com wrote:
I hope this isn't too noobish, nothing on the list comes up in Google,
but I'm curious why the construct
for x in y if x.is_some_thing:
# do a thing
But this is probably clearer (and has the same syntax):
for x in y:
if x.is_some_thing:
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2020-04-24 - 2020-05-01)
Python tracker at https://bugs.python.org/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue.
Do NOT respond to this message.
Issues counts and deltas:
open7427 (-25)
closed 44793 (+118)
total 52220 (+93)
Open issues w
>
> Few more lightning talks from Eric Holscher and Zac Hatfield-Dodds
>
>
... and Jim Baker
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-d
(x-posting to python-dev and python-committters)
Just wanted to share that the first 7 of 11 blog posts about presentations
and discussions from Python Language Summit are now up for your enjoyment.
Main article:
https://pyfound.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-2020-python-language-summit.html
Day 1:
A
Questions like this are best asked on python-ideas.
Specifically, though, you can get the same result with:
for x in (n for n in y if n.is_some_thing):
without requiring new syntax.
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe
I hope this isn't too noobish, nothing on the list comes up in Google, but
I'm curious why the construct
for x in y if x.is_some_thing:
# do a thing
isn't legal. That seems a very Pythonic symmetry with lambdas. The
equivalent syntax required right now is,
for x in [x for x in y if x.is_some_t
01.05.20 01:23, Paul Ganssle пише:
class LazyList:
def __init__(self, some_iterator):
self._iter = some_iterator
self._list = None
@call_once
def as_list(self):
self._list = list(self._iter)
return self._list
call_once is not applicable here,
