Tim Johnson wrote:
> * Tim Johnson [130802 15:41]:
> <...> Is there a cleaner way to do this? using apply()
>> looks so much simpler, but I understand it is not even available in
>> py 3
> def apl(funcall): funcall[0](*funcall[1])
> k = "key2"
> >>> apl(func_D[k])
> I don't have an a
>> t = (6,) # t=6, works but is much harder to see.
>
> That could lead to awful bugs, since it really is hard to see, and
> hitting the comma is a mistake I often make. I think I may stick with
> always using parentheses for tuples. Some conveniences aren't that
> convenient.
And this from
On 02/08/13 19:13, Jim Mooney wrote:
comma, then word in S, which made no sense, instead of unpacking -
word for (idx, word) in S. Done in again by the implied tuple ;')
Just to pick up a point that might be confusing you.
A tuple does not need parentheses.
>>> tup = 5,4
>>> tup
(5, 4)
>>> t
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Jim Mooney wrote:
> On 2 August 2013 00:46, Alan Gauld wrote:
> > On 02/08/13 08:32, Jim Mooney wrote:
>
> > How should Python interpret this?
> >
> > As
> >
> > x = [idx, (word for idx, word in S)]
> >
> > Or
> >
> >
> > x = [(idx, word) for idx, word in S]
> >
>
On 02/08/13 18:02, Jim Mooney wrote:
I see what you mean, but I figured it can't be ambiguous if one
interpretation makes no sense, and I can't see what x = [idx, (word
for idx, word in S)] could possibly mean. Am I assuming too much
foresight on the part of the parser or does that actually me
On 02/08/13 08:32, Jim Mooney wrote:
x = [idx, word for idx, word in S] #syntax error
# Why can I imply a tuple after the for, but not before?
How should Python interpret this?
As
x = [idx, (word for idx, word in S)]
Or
x = [(idx, word) for idx, word in S]
It's ambiguous.
--
Alan G
Autho
