Message234758
| Author | NeilGirdhar |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Jeff.Kaufman, Joshua.Landau, NeilGirdhar, SpaghettiToastBook, andybuckley, belopolsky, berker.peksag, eric.araujo, eric.snow, ezio.melotti, georg.brandl, gvanrossum, ncoghlan, paul.moore, pconnell, r.david.murray, terry.reedy, twouters, zbysz |
| Date | 2015-01-26.16:54:18 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1422291258.1.0.443067560291.issue2292@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Could you help me understand this a bit better?
I always thought of f(x for x in l) as equivalent to f( (x for x in l) ).
So, I can see that f(*x for x in l) should be equivalent to f( (*x for x in l) ).
How should we interpret f(**x for x in l)? Is it then f( {**x for x in l} )? |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2015-01-26 16:54:18 | NeilGirdhar | set | recipients: + NeilGirdhar, gvanrossum, twouters, georg.brandl, terry.reedy, paul.moore, ncoghlan, belopolsky, ezio.melotti, eric.araujo, andybuckley, r.david.murray, zbysz, eric.snow, berker.peksag, Joshua.Landau, pconnell, Jeff.Kaufman, SpaghettiToastBook |
| 2015-01-26 16:54:18 | NeilGirdhar | set | messageid: <1422291258.1.0.443067560291.issue2292@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2015-01-26 16:54:18 | NeilGirdhar | link | issue2292 messages |
| 2015-01-26 16:54:18 | NeilGirdhar | create | |