Jim Jewett wrote:
Gareth McCaughan wrote:
Some bit of my brain is convinced that [x in stuff if condition] is the Right Syntax and keeps making me type it even though I know it doesn't work.
(and I agree with Gareth)
On Monday 2005-03-14 12:42, Eric Nieuwland wrote:
The full syntax is: [ f(x) for x in seq if pred(x) ] being allowed to write 'x' instead of 'identity(x)' is already a shortcut, just as dropping the conditional part.
I think this is the heart of the disagreement.
Mentally, I'm not collecting some function of x (which happens to be identity). I am filtering an existing set. Being able to collect f(x) instead is just a useful but hackish shortcut.
Have it your own way, but if you happen to need a list of transformed elements of a filtered list (and that isn't an uncommon requirement) then the idea of selecting the set members and then transforming the copies as a separate step seems a little ... unnecessary.
Having to write
[x for x in seq]
to produce a copy of a list doesn't seem that outrageous to me, and I don't find the predicate-less case of your proposal that convincing:
[x in seq]
seems somehow too terse.