A really bad idea.

[Tim Peters]

[Dave Brueck]
> It's funny what people do and don't find readable, huh? I use list
> comps all the time because to me they are almost always more readable
> than the equivalent code and more vertically compact as well. I
> wouldn't mind having a dictionary comp

Do you know that dict() accepts an iterable object producing iterable
objects producing 2 objects each?  It's not exactly transparent when phrased
that way <wink>, but an example should help:

>>> dict([(i, i**2) for i in range(0, 20, 2)])
{0: 0, 16: 256, 2: 4, 4: 16, 6: 36, 8: 64, 10: 100, 12: 144,
 18: 324, 14: 196}
>>>

Or, more strangely,

>>> def square(i):
...     yield i
...     yield i**2
>>> dict([square(i) for i in range(0, 20, 2)])
{0: 0, 16: 256, 2: 4, 4: 16, 6: 36, 8: 64, 10: 100, 12: 144, 18: 324, 14:
196}
>>>

dict(zip(keys, values)) is also a useful thing to understand.

> but don't need it nearly as much, even less so a generator comp.

waiting-for-someone-to-ask-for-class-comprehensions-ly y'rs  - tim