On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 05:14:54AM +0000, Neil Girdhar wrote:
[Steven (me), refering to Greg]
Because as your own email inadvertently reinforces, if sequence unpacking made sense in the context of a list comprehension, it would already be allowed rather than a SyntaxError: it is intentionally prohibited because it doesn't make sense in the context of list comps.
Whoa, hang on a second there. It is intentionally prohibited because Joshua Landau (who helped a lot with writing and implementing the PEP) and I felt like there was going to be a long debate and we wanted to get PEP 448 checked in.
If it "didn't make sense" as you say, then we would have said so in the PEP. Instead, Josh wrote:
This was met with a mix of strong concerns about readability and mild support. In order not to disadvantage the less controversial aspects of the PEP, this was not accepted with the rest of the proposal.
Okay, interesting, and thanks for the correction.
I don't remember who it was who had those strong concerns (maybe you?) But that's why we didn't include it.
I'm pretty sure it wasn't me. I don't recall being involved at all with any discussions about PEP 448, and a quick search has failed to come up with anything relevant. I think I sat that one out.