News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Python 3.6 – Asynchronous Comprehensions. Parent comment

Re:Python 3.6 – Asynchronous Comprehensions by noobermin on Saturday December 10, 2016 @11:32PM (#13149604)
As a non-rubyist, this took me a minute to guess through. I prefer list comps.

hint: I'm implying familiarity over elegance.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Python 3.6 – Asynchronous Comprehensions by dorianm on Sunday December 11, 2016 @12:35AM (#13149763)
I guess in Python it would be going from:

    list(map(lambda x: x**2, [1, 2, 3, 4]))
To:

   list(pmap(lambda x: x**2, [1, 2, 3, 4]))
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Python 3.6 – Asynchronous Comprehensions by noobermin on Sunday December 11, 2016 @12:44AM (#13149783)
Right, and neither of those are pythonic. There is no need for a lambda when you have comprehensions.

This comment may relate better to your point: I would personally prefer "afor" over "async for", FWIW. One thing I don't feel "async for" is being more explicit over being more verbose. The symmetry with "await foo" is broken though.

[ Parent | on HN ]