Steven D'Aprano wrote: > comps. But reduce can't be written as a list comp, only as a relatively > complex for loop at a HUGE loss of readability -- and I've never used > Lisp or Scheme in my life. I'm surely not the only one.
See my reply to your other post for a more detailed explanation, but I don't think that the for-loop solution is much less readable at all, and the additional complexity involved is simply setting the initial value and result for the accumulator. The for-loop solution is even more flexible, because it can include anonymous code blocks and not just expressions. One caevat that I just noticed, though -- with the for-solution, you do need to be careful about whether you're using a generator or list if you do not set an explicit initial value (and instead use the first value of 'sequence' as the start). The difference is: _accum = g.next() for i in g: _accum = stuff(_accum,i) versus _accum = g[0] for i in g[1:]: _accum = stuff(_accum,i) The difference is because generators don't support subscripts, while lists don't support .next() iteration. Unless I'm missing something in the language (entirely possible), this suggests a missing feature for same-syntax iteration over the two types. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
