[Python-ideas] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: unpacking generalisations for list comprehension

[Sven R. Kunze]

On 17.10.2016 22:12, Paul Moore wrote:
> 4. Whether you choose to believe me or not, I've sincerely tried to
> understand the proposal [...]
I think you did and I would like others to follow your example.
> 2. Can someone summarise the *other* arguments for the proposal?
I for one think it's just restriction lifting. If that doesn't suffice, 
that's okay.
> It's worth noting here that we have had
> no real-world use cases, so the common approach of demonstrating real
> code, and showing how the proposal improves it, is not available.
Sorry? You know, I am all for real-world code and I also delivered: 
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2016-October/043030.html

If it doesn't meet your standards of real-world code, okay. I meets mine.
> Also, there's no evidence that this is a common need, and so it's not
> clear to what extent any sort of special language support is
> warranted. We don't (as far as I know, and no-one's provided evidence
> otherwise) see people routinely writing workarounds for this
> construct.
I do. Every usage of chain.from_iterable is that, well, "workaround". 
Workaround is too hard I think. It's more of an inconvenience.
> We don't hear of trainers saying that pupils routinely try
> to do this, and are surprised when it doesn't work (I'm specifically
> talking about students *deducing* this behaviour, not being asked if
> they think it's reasonable once explained).
That's fair. As we see it, trainers deliberately choose to omit some 
language features they personally feel uncomfortable with. So, yes, if 
there were trainers who routinely reported this, that would be a strong 
argument for it. However, the absence of this signal, is not an argument 
against it IMHO.
> I don't see any signs of progress here. And I'm pretty much at the
> point where I'm losing interest in having the same points repeated at
> me over and over, as if repetition and volume will persuade me. Sorry.

Same here. The discussion is inconclusive. I think it's best to drop it 
for the time being.


Best,
Sven