reduce to be removed?

[Dustan]

Robert Kern wrote:
> Dustan wrote:
> > Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>
> >> if you care about writing robust code, why not just use a for-loop,
> >> and the list extend method?
> >
> > Because I'm embedding this expression in a list comprehension (as I
> > stated in my original post), and last time I checked, it's not possible
> > to treat a for-loop as an expression (which is what a list
> > comprehension requires).
>
> As with all such things, you stick the implementation in a well-named function
> and simply call the function everywhere. The implementation never needs to be a
> one-liner expression.

It's already in a function, but in order to convert the reduce function
into a for-loop that I can use as an expression, I would have to create
another independent function, which would make that code more cluttered
than it already is.

Unless you're saying to perform the list comprehension manually. That
would be two for-loops I use in the list comprehension, plus another
one to take place of the reduce function. Sure, that spreads out each
individual step a little more, but it also makes it more difficult to
understand what the overall goal of the code is (I'm going for
readability as well as easy maintenance here).

> --
> Robert Kern
>
> "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
>  that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
>  an underlying truth."
>   -- Umberto Eco