[Python-checkins] peps: Minor editorial clean ups:

[georg.brandl]

http://hg.python.org/peps/rev/feff5ca55cd1
changeset:   132:feff5ca55cd1
user:        Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org>
date:        Wed Aug 23 05:19:21 2000 +0000
summary:
  Minor editorial clean ups:
    - conform the headers
    - `standard' paragraph wrapping (i.e. how the Editor's editor
      wraps 'em :)
    - move the URL for the patch to the (new) References section
    - added reference to PEP 201

Tim, should this be marked Accepted now?

files:
  pep-0202.txt |  64 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------
  1 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)


diff --git a/pep-0202.txt b/pep-0202.txt
--- a/pep-0202.txt
+++ b/pep-0202.txt
@@ -1,31 +1,32 @@
 PEP: 202
 Title: List Comprehensions
 Version: $Revision$
-Owner: tpeters at beopen.com (Tim Peters)
+Author: tpeters at beopen.com (Tim Peters)
+Status: Draft
+Type: Standards Track
 Python-Version: 2.0
-Status: Incomplete
+Created: 13-Jul-2000
+Post-History:
 
 
 Introduction
 
-    This PEP describes a proposed syntactical extension to Python, list
-    comprehensions. 
-
+    This PEP describes a proposed syntactical extension to Python,
+    list comprehensions.
 
 
 The Proposed Solution
 
-    It is proposed to allow conditional construction of list literals using
-    for and if clauses.  They would nest in the same way for loops and if
-    statements nest now.
+    It is proposed to allow conditional construction of list literals
+    using for and if clauses.  They would nest in the same way for
+    loops and if statements nest now.
     
 
-
 Rationale
 
     List comprehensions provide a more concise way to create lists in
-    situations where map() and filter() and/or nested loops would currently
-    be used.
+    situations where map() and filter() and/or nested loops would
+    currently be used.
 
 
 Examples
@@ -59,11 +60,7 @@
 
 Reference Implementation
 
-    Please refer to 
-
-        https://sourceforge.net/patch/?func=detailpatch&patch_id=100654&group_id=5470
-
-    for a patch that adds list comprehensions to Python.
+    SourceForge contains a patch that adds list comprehensions to Python[1].
 
 
 BDFL Pronouncements
@@ -74,19 +71,19 @@
     - The syntax proposed above is the Right One.
 
     - The form [x, y for ...] should be disallowed; one should be
-    required to write [(x, y) for ...].
+      required to write [(x, y) for ...].
 
     - The form [... for x... for y...] nests, with the last index
-    varying fastest, just like nested for loops.
+      varying fastest, just like nested for loops.
 
 
 Open Issues
 
     Syntax
 
-        Several people proposed connecting or separating syntax between the
-        various clauses, for example, requiring a semicolon between them to
-        set them apart:
+        Several people proposed connecting or separating syntax
+        between the various clauses, for example, requiring a
+        semicolon between them to set them apart:
 
             [i,f; for i in nums; for f in fruit; if f[0]=="P"; if i%2==1]
 
@@ -113,18 +110,25 @@
 
             map(None, nums, fruit)
 
-        It's not clear that this is necessary.  The newly proposed zip()
-        builtin takes care of that case.
+        It's not clear that this is necessary.  The newly proposed
+        zip() builtin[2] takes care of that case.
 
     Stability of the Implementation
 
-        The current reference implementation is simply an adaptation of Greg
-        Ewing's original demonstration of the concept.  Other than tracking
-        changes to the source code to keep it a valid patch, reindenting the
-        code and switching to function prototypes, nothing has been done to
-        it.  This obviously raises some questions about how stable the code
-        is.  It has not had a lot of exercise, though the patch does include
-        a few test cases.
+        The current reference implementation is simply an adaptation
+        of Greg Ewing's original demonstration of the concept.  Other
+        than tracking changes to the source code to keep it a valid
+        patch, reindenting the code and switching to function
+        prototypes, nothing has been done to it.  This obviously
+        raises some questions about how stable the code is.  It has
+        not had a lot of exercise, though the patch does include a few
+        test cases.
+
+
+References
+
+    [1] https://sourceforge.net/patch/?func=detailpatch&patch_id=100654&group_id=5470
+    [2] Lockstep Iteration, pep-0201.txt
 
 
 Local Variables:

-- 
Repository URL: http://hg.python.org/peps