In article <mailman.385.1377858745.19984.python-l...@python.org>, Fábio Santos <fabiosantos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2013 23:20, "Ben Finney" <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > > > > Fábio Santos <fabiosantos...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > It is a shame that this is not possible in python. for..if exists in > > > comprehensions and not in regular loops but that would be nice > > > sometimes. > > > > So you use it in a generator expression, and iterate over the generator: > > > > for foo in (spam for spam in sequence if predicate(spam)): > > process(spam) > > > > That way, there's no need for new syntax. > > The problem I have with that strategy is that it is repetitive and hinders > readability. You wrote "for" and "in" twice, and spam (a pretty useless > intermediate variable) thrice! While it does its job, it hides the true > intent for filtering beneath a lot of (pun intended) spam. The "if" > particle is nigh undetectable there. > > To get around this, I often declare a generator. But I still find it a bit > awkward to have to look up the definition elsewhere, and to waste lines > over something so simple. > > I can't say I understand why we don't merge the for loops' syntax with the > comprehension syntax. Even after following the for..while discussion. +1 on loop comprehensions, for all the reasons Fábios states.
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
