Proposed new syntax

[Tim Daneliuk]

On 08/10/2017 09:28 AM, Steve D'Aprano wrote:
> Every few years, the following syntax comes up for discussion, with some people
> saying it isn't obvious what it would do, and others disagreeing and saying
> that it is obvious. So I thought I'd do an informal survey.
> 
> What would you expect this syntax to return?
> 
> [x + 1 for x in (0, 1, 2, 999, 3, 4) while x < 5]

[1,2,3]

> 
> 
> For comparison, what would you expect this to return? (Without actually trying
> it, thank you.)
> 
> [x + 1 for x in (0, 1, 2, 999, 3, 4) if x < 5]

[1,2,3,4,5,]

> 
> 
> 
> How about these?
> 
> [x + y for x in (0, 1, 2, 999, 3, 4) while x < 5 for y in (100, 200)]

[100,200,101,201,102,202]

> 
> [x + y for x in (0, 1, 2, 999, 3, 4) if x < 5 for y in (100, 200)]


[100,200,101,201,102,202.103,203,104,204
]
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your comments!
> 
> 
>