reduce to be removed?

[Robert Kern]

Dustan wrote:
> Robert Kern wrote:
>> Dustan wrote:
>>> Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>>>> if you care about writing robust code, why not just use a for-loop,
>>>> and the list extend method?
>>> Because I'm embedding this expression in a list comprehension (as I
>>> stated in my original post), and last time I checked, it's not possible
>>> to treat a for-loop as an expression (which is what a list
>>> comprehension requires).
>> As with all such things, you stick the implementation in a well-named function
>> and simply call the function everywhere. The implementation never needs to be a
>> one-liner expression.
> 
> It's already in a function, but in order to convert the reduce function
> into a for-loop that I can use as an expression, I would have to create
> another independent function, which would make that code more cluttered
> than it already is.
> 
> Unless you're saying to perform the list comprehension manually. That
> would be two for-loops I use in the list comprehension, plus another
> one to take place of the reduce function. Sure, that spreads out each
> individual step a little more, but it also makes it more difficult to
> understand what the overall goal of the code is (I'm going for
> readability as well as easy maintenance here).

Let's just say that we disagree entirely on what constitutes readability and
maintainability.

-- 
Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
 that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
 an underlying truth."
  -- Umberto Eco