On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 17:10:12 +1000
Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 November 2017 at 16:18, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 25 November 2017 at 15:27, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 9:04 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> def example():
> >>>> comp1 = yield from [(yield x) for x in ('1st', '2nd')]
> >>>> comp2 = yield from [(yield x) for x in ('3rd', '4th')]
> >>>> return comp1, comp2
> >>>
> >>> Isn't this a really confusing way of writing
> >>>
> >>> def example():
> >>> return [(yield '1st'), (yield '2nd')], [(yield '3rd'), (yield '4th')]
> >>>
> >>
> >> A real use case
> >
> > Do you have a real use case? This seems incredibly niche...
>
> That's not how backwards compatibility works - we were suggesting
> getting rid of this syntax, because there was no current way to make
> it do anything sensible.
>
> It turns out there is a way to make it behave reasonably - you just
> need to stick "yield from" in front of it, and it goes back to being
> equivalent to the corresponding for loop (the same as the synchronous
> version).
I don't know if it behaves reasonably, but it's entirely unreadable to
me. I think there's a case for discouraging unreadable constructs.
Regards
Antoine.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
