On 2010-09-23, Steven D'Aprano <steve-remove-t...@cybersource.com.au> wrote: > On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 01:49:44 +0000, Seebs wrote: >> But I do think it's unfair to dismiss it as purely a matter of baby duck >> syndrome. Consistency in ordering of corresponding idioms seems a >> reasonable goal.
> I don't see anyone bitching about: > for x in seq: > if x: > f(x) > vs > [f(x) for x in seq if x] In my case, that's because I only ran into that syntax about an hour and a half ago. I have the same basic objection to it. If it were: [for x in seq: if x: f(x)] I'd find it substantially easier to understand. I don't generally like constructs where important structural information comes late in the construct. In the trivial case, I don't suppose it makes a huge difference, but think about the case where seq starts with a ( and x ends with one: [f(x) for x in (1, 2, 3) if foo(x)] As the expressions get complicated, that gets harder to see. IMHO. I dunno. I like the "next if /^$/" idiom, but anything more complicated for either the condition or the thing conditionalized and I tend to prefer to jump back to an explicit if statement. -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated! I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
