"Phillip J. Eby" <pje@telecommunity.com> writes:
Which of course means there'd be little need for imap and ifilter, just as there's now little need for map and filter.
Anyway, if you look at '.. for .. in .. [if ..]' as a ternary or quaternary operator on an iterator (or iterable) that returns an iterator, it makes a lot more sense than thinking of it as having anything to do with generator(s). (Even if it might be implemented that way.)
I've reached the point of skimming this discussion, but this struck a chord. I think the original proposal (for special syntax for accumulators) is too limited, and if anything is needed (not clear on that) it should be a generalised iterator comprehension construct. In that context, it seems to me that iterator comprehensions bear a very similar relationship to imap/ifilter to the relationship between map/filter and list comprehensions. Paul. -- This signature intentionally left blank