Conditional iteration

[at]

Dear Carl,

Well, all I can say that for me as a user it would make sense...

Curiosity: in what sense is it redundant?
All solution/workarounds I have seen so far involve creation of new lists
(subsets) adding to more processing/computation/memory usage. Redundant
suggests that you know alternatives that don't do that.

Does Guido ever change his mind?

Cheers,

@


Carl Banks wrote:

> at wrote:
>> I am not looking for a work around but more interest if other people
>> might judge this syntax would come in handy?
> 
> Of course people have expressed interest in this in the past, but it's
> not going to happen.  There's a way to nest for and if statements, and
> a different way to nest for and if clauses in listcomps, and the two
> methods are considered distinct.  Although Guido has said that saving
> indentation levels is important, he hasn't said  anything (that I'm
> aware of) that suggests it's important enough to add this complexity
> and redundancy to the language.  Sorry.
> 
> 
> Carl Banks