On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 13:16:37 -0500, George Sakkis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sure there must have been a past thread about this topic but I don't know
how to find it: How
about extending the for X in syntax so that X can include default
arguments ? This would be very
useful for list/generator
George Sakkis wrote:
A generalization of the 'for .. in' syntax that would handle
extra arguments the same way as functions would be:
for (x,y,z=0,*rest) in (1,2,3), (3,4), (5,6,7,8):
print x, y, z, rest
I'd love to see this in python one day; it is pretty obvious what
it would do for
George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A generalization of the 'for .. in' syntax that would handle
extra arguments the same way as functions would be:
for (x,y,z=0,*rest) in (1,2,3), (3,4), (5,6,7,8):
print x, y, z, rest
I'd love to see this in python
Jeff Shannon wrote:
Function arguments are *not* (in general) a case of tuple unpacking, on
the other hand, so the parallels between function arguments and for loop
control-variable tuples are not so straightforward as is being claimed.
It seems to me the parallel is close enough that no
Terry Reedy wrote:
Jeff covered the obvious objection that this is a change from
assignment
sematics to function call semantics.
Slightly less obvious is that this
will slow down everyone's for loops for the benefit of the very few
who
would want to do such a thing.
If the action of
I'm sure there must have been a past thread about this topic but I don't know
how to find it: How
about extending the for X in syntax so that X can include default arguments
? This would be very
useful for list/generator comprehensions, for example being able to write
something like:
[x*y-z
George Sakkis wrote:
This would be very
useful for list/generator comprehensions, for example being able to
write something like:
[x*y-z for (x,y,z=0) in (1,2,3), (4,5), (6,7,8)]
Looks very appealing, but what to do with
[x*y-z for (x=0,y,z) in (1,2,3), (4,5), (6,7,8)] ?
Should it raise
George Sakkis wrote:
I'm sure there must have been a past thread about this topic but I don't know
how to find it: How
about extending the for X in syntax so that X can include default arguments
? This would be very
useful for list/generator comprehensions, for example being able to write
Kay Schluehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
George Sakkis wrote:
This would be very
useful for list/generator comprehensions, for example being able to
write something like:
[x*y-z for (x,y,z=0) in (1,2,3), (4,5), (6,7,8)]
Looks very appealing, but what to do with
[x*y-z for (x=0,y,z)
Matteo Dell'Amico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
George Sakkis wrote:
I'm sure there must have been a past thread about this topic but I don't
know how to find it:
How
about extending the for X in syntax so that X can include default
arguments ? This would be
very
useful for list/generator
On Sunday 20 March 2005 20:47, George Sakkis wrote:
Not always. Say for example that you're doing some 2D geometry stuff, and
later you have to extend it to 3D. In this case you may have to deal with
both 2D and 3D objects, and map the former to the latter when necessary.
But this rather
Am Sonntag, 20. März 2005 22:22 schrieb George Sakkis:
Once more, the 2D/3D example was just that, an example; my point was not to
find a specific solution to a specific problem.
And my point being: it's simple enough to give a general recipe (which my
example was) without extending Python's
Heiko Wundram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Sonntag, 20. März 2005 22:22 schrieb George Sakkis:
Once more, the 2D/3D example was just that, an example; my point was not to
find a specific solution to a specific problem.
And my point being: it's simple enough to give a general recipe (which
George Sakkis wrote:
Looks very appealing, but what to do with
[x*y-z for (x=0,y,z) in (1,2,3), (4,5), (6,7,8)] ?
Should it raise an exception due to a pattern mismatch?
I didn't have in mind to generalize the syntax even more than the
respective
for function
signatures, therefore
14 matches
Mail list logo
