[Python-ideas] Calling a function of a list without accumulating results

Stephen J. Turnbull stephen at xemacs.org
Thu Sep 27 07:15:23 CEST 2007


Terry Jones writes:
 > The trivial case I posted isn't much of a win over the simple 2-line
 > alternative, but it's easy to go to further:
 > 
 >     f(x, y) for x in myXlist for y in myYlist

Excuse me?

 > instead of
 > 
 >     for x in myXlist:
 >         for y in myYlist:
 >             f(x, y)

Oh, is that what you meant?!<wink>

I think the second version is much more readable, and only a few
characters longer when typing.

 > The second argument is one of consistency.  If list comprehensions are
 > regarded as more pythonic and the Right Way to code in Python, I'd make the
 > same argument for when you don't happen to want to keep the accumulated
 > results.  Why force programmers to use two coding styles in order to get
 > essentially the same thing done?

Because it is essentially not the same thing.  Comprehension syntax is
justified precisely when you want to generate a list value for immediate
use, and all the other ways to generate that value force you to hide
what's being done in an assignment deep inside a thicket of syntax.
List comprehensions are Pythonic because they "look like" lists.
IMHO, anyway.

OTOH, in Python, control syntax always starts with a keyword.  A naked
comprehension just doesn't look like a control statement to me, it
still looks like an expression.  I don't know if that's un-Pythonic,
but I do like the multiline version better.

 > I think these are decent arguments. It's simply the full succinctness and
 > convenience of list comprehensions, without needing to accumulate results.

But succintness and convenience aren't arguments for doing something
in Python as I understand it.  Lack of succintness and convenience may
postpone acceptance of a PEP, or even kill it, of course.  But they've
never been sufficient for acceptance of a PEP that I've seen.



More information about the Python-ideas mailing list