Roel Schroeven writes: > Lele Gaifax schreef op 6/04/2017 20:07: >> Piet van Oostrum <pie...@pietvanoostrum.com> writes: >> >>> It is a poor man's 'let'. It would be nice if python had a real 'let' >>> construction. Or for example: >>> >>> [(tmp, tmp + 1) for x in data with tmp = expensive_calculation(x)] >>> >>> Alas! >> >> It would be nice indeed! >> >> Or even >> >> [(tmp, tmp + 1) for x in data >> with expensive_calculation(x) as tmp >> if tmp is not None] >> > > Perhaps this: > > [(tmp, tmp + 1) for tmp in > (expensive_calculation(x) for x in data) > if tmp is not None] > > A bit less elegant, but works right now.
The "poor man's let" works right now. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list