[ Tim, about the most version of the docs at
https://docs.python.org/dev/reference/expressions.html#displays-for-lists-sets-and-dictionaries
]
>> I say "pretty much" because, for whatever reason(s), it seems to be
>> trying hard _not_ to use the word "function". But I can't guess what
>> "the
On 14 May 2018 at 04:05, Tim Peters wrote:
> I say "pretty much" because, for whatever reason(s), it seems to be
> trying hard _not_ to use the word "function". But I can't guess what
> "then passed as an argument to the implicitly nested scope" could
> possibly mean otherwise (it doesn't make l
[Chris Angelico ...
> With current semantics, you can easily prove that a list comp is
> implemented with a function by looking at how it interacts with other
> scopes (mainly class scope), but Tim's proposal may change that.
Absolutely not. I haven't considered for a nanosecond that anything
_e
On Mon, May 14, 2018, 03:36 Chris Angelico wrote:
> Guido has stated that this parallel is desired and important:
>
> result = [f(x) for x in iter if g(x)]
> result = list(f(x) for x in iter if g(x))
>
> Obviously the genexp has to be implemented with a nested function,
> since there's no guarant
Guido has stated that this parallel is desired and important:
result = [f(x) for x in iter if g(x)]
result = list(f(x) for x in iter if g(x))
Obviously the genexp has to be implemented with a nested function,
since there's no guarantee that it'll be iterated over in this way.
With current semanti
