Hello Everyone, If I've done this incorrectly, please let me know so that I can improve/revise. I'm new to the Python community and quite enjoy the more functional features of Python 3, but have I have a peeve about it. I'd like to propose and discuss the following enhancement to Python 3: *Consider the following trivial for-loop:* chars = "abcaaabkjzhbjacvb" seek = {'a','b','c'} count = 0for a in chars: if a in seek: count += 1 Gross. Twice nested for a simple count. *We could refactor the block like so:* chars = "abcaaabkjzhbjacvb" seek = {'a','b','c'} count = 0for a in filter(lambda c: c in seek, chars): count += 1 Which is all well and good, but doesn't quite read like English. It's verbose, too. It also uses advanced concepts new programmers may not understand. *We could do this:* chars = "abcaaabkjzhbjacvb" seek = {'a','b','c'} count = sum([1 for a in chars if a in seek]) However, this changes important semantics by creating an entire new list before summing. Also, adding just one more expression to the most nested block thwarts that refactor. I propose the following enhancement: chars = "abcaaabkjzhbjacvb" seek = {'a','b','c'} count = 0for a in chars if a in seek: count += 1 *What happened there?* I've allowed a condition to follow the "for" construct without a colon or newline between. *To be clear, this remains incorrect:* chars = "abcaaabkjzhbjacvb" seek = {'a','b','c'} count = 0for a in chars # No colon prior to the newline if a in seek: count += 1 *Value proposal:* I assert that the inlined 'if' condition pattern is superior to the alternative refactors. Right now, the way to acquire an invariant in a more nasty loop would be: for a in iterable: if condition: continue But this is messy and not particularly Pythonic. The filter approach uses concepts that should not be necessary for this task. The comprehension approach has different, undesirable semantics. *Conclusion:* I wanted to submit my thoughts here before getting too deep into this. Any input would be appreciated! Thanks everyone.