Barry Warsaw writes: > My questions are 1) will this become idiomatic enough to be able to > understand at a glance what is going on,
Is it similar enough to def f(x=[0]): which is sometimes seen as a way to produce a mutable default value for function arguments, to be "idiomatic"? > rather than having to pause to reason about what that 1-element > list-like syntax actually means, and 2) will this encourage even > more complicated comprehensions that are less readable than just > expanding the code into a for-loop? Of course it will encourage more complicated comprehensions, and we know that complexity is less readable. On the other hand, a for loop with a temporary variable will take up at least 3 statements vs. a one-statement comprehension. I don't have an opinion about the equities there. I myself will likely use the [(y, f(y)) for x in xs for y in costly(x)] idiom very occasionally, with emphasis on "very" (for almost all "costly" functions I might use that's the Knuthian root of error). But I don't know how others feel about it. Steve _______________________________________________ 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