What's do list comprehensions do that generator expressions don't?

[Terry Reedy]

"Mike Meyer" <mwm at mired.org> wrote in message
> The question under these circumstances is then: do you want bare
> genexp to mean something? Right now, it's a syntax error. But there's
> no reason you couldn't have:
>
>   y = x for x in stuff
>
> assign a generator object to y.

Since this was considered, there is a reason why we don't have this.  As I 
remenber, but vaguely, Guido's reasoning was both stylistic and technical, 
but you'd have to check the archives for more.

Terry J. Reedy