Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!rt.uk.eu.org!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed1.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 19:58:14 +0200
From: Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130704 Icedove/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: semicolon at end of python's statements
References: <1377735506.18906.15.camel@debian> <mailman.347.1377760274.19984.python-list@python.org> <1FETt.52607$Mw4.14965@fx15.am4> <CAPTjJmpBbf=BkZdeg3VdBYFvB0ADtyseGAMB214jJDyqZa=pmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAA=1kxR_pT=MsUSSk0v-oij-0hSh0LEYrrP5i+5MukmcYfOGWA@mail.gmail.com> <7wob8gywds.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <mailman.385.1377858745.19984.python-list@python.org> <52213435$0$6599$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <52213435$0$6599$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.452.1378058364.19984.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 62
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:53421

Op 31-08-13 02:09, Steven D'Aprano schreef:
> On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:32:17 +0100, Fábio Santos wrote:
>
>> On 29 Aug 2013 23:20, "Ben Finney" <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> Fábio Santos <fabiosantosart@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> It is a shame that this is not possible in python. for..if exists in
>>>> comprehensions and not in regular loops but that would be nice
>>>> sometimes.
>>>
>>> So you use it in a generator expression, and iterate over the
>>> generator:
>>>
>>>      for foo in (spam for spam in sequence if predicate(spam)):
>>>          process(spam)
>>>
>>> That way, there's no need for new syntax.
>>
>> The problem I have with that strategy is that it is repetitive and
>> hinders readability. You wrote "for" and "in" twice, and spam (a pretty
>> useless intermediate variable) thrice!
>
> There is no need for spam to be "intermediate", and the fact that it
> shouldn't be is demonstrated by Ben's error in referring to "process
> (spam)" instead of "process(foo)".
>
> We really are spoiled for choice here. We can write any of these:
>
> # Option 1
> for spam in sequence:
>      if predicate(spam):
>          process(spam)
>
> # Option 2
> for spam in filter(predicate, sequence):
>      process(spam)
>
> # Option 3
> for spam in (spam for spam in sequence if predicate(spam)):
>      process(spam)
>
>
> Adding a fourth option:
>
> for spam in sequence if predicate(spam):
>      process(spam)
>
> saves absolutely nothing except a line and an indent level, neither of
> which are in short supply, and gains nothing in readability over Option 1.

I find this rather disenginuous. Dare to suggest here that python might
benetif by incluidng end markers for its suits because it would make it 
clearer how many indent levels were done, and chances are someone here
will suggest that too many indent levels are a sign of bad coding
practice, but when someone suggests a change that would allow him
to structure his program more like how he sees it and indent levels
are not short in supply, suggesting there is no problem, no matter how
many one uses.

-- 
Antoon Pardon