On Mon, May 14, 2018, 03:36 Chris Angelico <[email protected]> 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 guarantee that it'll be iterated over in this way. > 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. > > So I'm looking for examples that prove that a list comp is executed > inside an implicit function. Ideally, examples that are supported by > language guarantees, but something that's "CPython has done it this > way since 3.0" is important too. > > I'm aware of just two: the name lookup interaction that may be > changing, and the fact that there's an extra line in a traceback. And > the latter, as far as I know, is not guaranteed (and I doubt anyone > would care if it changed). Are there any other provable points? >
Related to the traceback one: the extra stack frame shows up in a debugger, and a profiler counts the extra frame separately. The first often confuses me because I don't immediately see which frame I'm in just by seeing the line of code. There are odd interactions between `yield`/`yield from` and comprehensions that was discussed some months ago: "[Python-Dev] Tricky way of of creating a generator via a comprehension expression". Wait, is this a continuation of that discussion? >
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com