Greg Ewing <greg.ewing at compaq.com> writes:

"Magnus L. Hetland" wrote:

[(i, s) for i in (nums and s in strs)]

"Magnus L. Hetland" wrote:

[(i, s) for i in nums and s in strs]

That would be ambiguous, because it could be parsed as[(i, s) for i in (nums and s in strs)]

[(i, s) for i in nums]

IC. Oh, well... But what about:

[(i, s) for i in nums, and s in strs]

This is still grammatically correct English, AFAIK... And the ", and"

constellation does not have another valid interpretation, does it?

(Though it might not be really pretty...)

It *might* be feasible to use

[(i, s) for i in nums and for s in strs]

Nice. Much less confusing than just using the *for* directly.[(i, s) for i in nums and for s in strs]

(Of course, any mechanisms of parallel iteration might be used here if

they appear... Like [(i, s) for i, s in nums, strs] or something)

If I get a spare moment or two one day I'll try this

and see whether the parser chokes. (Python's parser

is a bit strange - it's hard to predict what it can

handle and what it can't.) Good :)

Greg

--and see whether the parser chokes. (Python's parser

is a bit strange - it's hard to predict what it can

handle and what it can't.) Good :)

Greg

Magnus Echelon jamming noise:

Lie FBI CIA NSA Handgun Assault Bomb Drug Terrorism

Hetland Special Forces Delta Force AK47 Hillary Clinton