Lie Ryan writes:
The proposal enables comprehension to become filter+map+filter, map+filter, filter+map, or map-only; eliminating the redundant map in (map+filter)+(map+filter).
The problem with the proposal is that that is *all* it does. I don't see how you plan to disambiguate in cases where the desired operation "really is" (map+filter)+(map+filter). So what you're stuck at is "I want this one operation to be a one-liner." The reply to that is "not every two-line function needs to have special syntax." Unless you can generalize this proposal to handle more general lambdas in a beautiful and Pythonic way, you've already been offered two obvious and nice ways to do it, and another obvious way that is an "ugly" mixed metaphor. All of the other idioms *do* generalize. We just spent several years de-cluttering Python 3, it's too soon to start cluttering it up again, no matter how beautiful it makes this special case. And I happen to think Ben's iterated generator comprehension is the most beautiful of the lot. YMMV of course but so does a that of a lot of other people; getting a consensus for new syntax is going to be impossible if you don't generalize the proposal.