> On Apr 30, 2018, at 9:37 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 08:09:35AM +0100, Paddy McCarthy wrote:
> [...]
>> A PEP that can detract from readability; *readability*, a central
>> tenet of Python, should
>> be rejected, (on principle!), when such objections are treated so
On 30 April 2018 at 17:37, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 08:09:35AM +0100, Paddy McCarthy wrote:
> [...]
> > A PEP that can detract from readability; *readability*, a central
> > tenet of Python, should
> > be rejected, (on principle!), when such objections are treated so
> >
On 04/30/2018 12:37 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> - comprehensions? not readable, easy to abuse, hard for beginners
> to comprehend;
I still refer to them as "list incomprehensions" in my head, particularly
for those whic expand across line breaks.
Tres.
--
TBH I think the text of the PEP could be much improved -- for example it
should use motivating examples from real code, not artificial examples to
show edge cases of the semantics.
At this point I don't think that more people expressing an opinion one way
or another are going to make a difference.
On 30 April 2018 at 17:37, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 08:09:35AM +0100, Paddy McCarthy wrote:
> [...]
>> A PEP that can detract from readability; *readability*, a central
>> tenet of Python, should
>> be rejected, (on principle!), when such objections are treated so
>> dismi
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 08:09:35AM +0100, Paddy McCarthy wrote:
[...]
> A PEP that can detract from readability; *readability*, a central
> tenet of Python, should
> be rejected, (on principle!), when such objections are treated so
> dismissively.
Unless you have an objective measurement of reada
The PEP s section on Frequently raised objections includes:
(https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0572/#this-could-be-used-to-create-ugly-code)
> This could be used to create ugly code!
>
> So can anything else. This is a tool, and it is up to the programmer to use
> it where
> it makes sense, an
