On 17.10.2016 20:38, David Mertz wrote:
Under my proposed "more flexible recursion levels" idea, it could even be:
[f(x) for x in flatten(it, levels=3)]
There would simply be NO WAY to get that out of the * comprehension syntax at all. But a decent flatten() function gets all the flexibility.
I see what you are trying to do here and I appreciate it. Just one thought from my practical experience: I haven't had a single usage for levels > 1. levels==1 is basically * which I have at least one example for. Maybe, that relates to the fact that we asked our devs to use names (as in attributes or dicts) instead of deeply nested list/tuple structures.
Do you think it would make sense to start a new thread just for the sake of readability?
Honestly, it goes beyond just being "wrong". The repeated refusal to even acknowledge any equivalence between [...x... for x in [a, b, c]] and [...a..., ...b..., ...c...] truly makes it difficult for me to accept some people's _sincerity_.
I am absolutely sincere in disliking and finding hard-to-teach this novel use of * in comprehensions.
You are consistent at least. You don't teach * in list displays, no matter if regular lists or comprehensions. +1
P.S. It's very artificial to assume user are unable to use 'from itertools import chain' to try to make chain() seem more cumbersome than it is.
I am sorry but it is cumbersome.