On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:28 PM, Daniel Robinson <
gottagetmac@gmail.com> wrote:
> While this looks attractive to me, and it's definitely better to change
> statement and comprehension syntax at the same time, this makes the
> comprehension ambiguous to human parsing.
>
> [f(x) for x in list if x > 10] basically can be read as
>
> for x in list:
> if x > 10:
> f(x)
>
> This kind of interpretation becomes critical if you nest more than two
> levels. But [f(x) for x in list while x < 10] could read either as
>
> for x in list while x < 10:
> f(x)
>
> which is how you want it to be read, or (more in line with earlier list comp
> habits):
>
> for x in list:
> while x < 10:
> f(x)
>
> which would be totally wrong.
>
> I don't think this is a very serious problem (certainly not for the
> interpreter), but it's a stumbling block.
>
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Jan Kaliszewski <
zuo@chopin.edu.pl> wrote:
>>
>> 2013-07-02 00:44, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> Having a while clause on for loops is not just good because it saves a
>>> couple of lines but because it clearly separates the flow control from
>>> the body of the loop (another reason I dislike 'break if'). In other
>>> words I find the flow of the loop
>>>
>>> for p in primes() while p < 100:
>>> print(p)
>>>
>>> easier to understand (immediately) than
>>>
>>> for p in primes():
>>> if p >= 100:
>>> break
>>> print(p)
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Cheers.
>> *j
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Python-ideas mailing list
>>
Python-ideas@python.org
>>
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
>
Python-ideas@python.org
>
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
>