[Python-Dev] (no subject) (original) (raw)

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Tue Feb 10 14:26:19 CET 2015

On 10 Feb 2015 19:41, "Paul Moore" <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:

I agree completely with Donald here. The comprehension syntax has consistently been the part of the proposal that has resulted in confused questions from reviewers, and I don't think it's at all intuitive. Is it allowable to vote on parts of the PEP separately? If not, then the comprehension syntax is enough for me to reject the whole proposal. If we can look at parts in isolation, I'm OK with saying -1 to the comprehension syntax and then we can look at whether the other parts of the PEP add enough to be worth it (the comprehension side is enough of a distraction that I haven't really considered the other bits yet).

It occurs to me that the PEP effectively changes the core of a generator expression from "yield x" to "yield from x" if the tuple expansion syntax is used. If we rejected the "yield *x" syntax for standalone yield expressions, I don't think it makes sense to now add it for generator expressions.

So I guess that adds me to the -1 camp on the comprehension/generator expression part of the story - it doesn't make things all that much easier to write than the relevant nested loop, and it makes them notably harder to read.

I haven't formed an opinion on the rest of the PEP yet, as it's been a while since I read the full text. I'll read through the latest version tomorrow.

Regards, Nick.

Paul

Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev at python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ncoghlan%40gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20150210/2e8a29c9/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list