2 ms·

The 2 statements are consistent. You can live without for comprehensions if you have good anonymous functions support. If Python adds better anonymous function

• dragonwriter 12y ago
  > You can live without for comprehensions if you have good anonymous functions support. You can live without either, as decades of C programmers have demonstrated. Both are beneficial, as theeir widespread popularity in newer language attests. Neither is a perfect substitute for the other, as the fact that they tend to be both present in many newer languages, rather than being exclusive. > its for comprehensions will be conflicting and much less useful than in languages that had good anonymous functions support from the beginning. I don't see the "conflict" asserted here. I've used Ruby fairly heavily -- which has, in the relevant sense, far better anonymous function support than Python (even though it has different quirks) -- and certainly as nice as Ruby blocks are, a clean comprehension syntax is pretty much the main thing I find myself wishing I had sometimes in Ruby that Python has. And, sure, Python's comprehensions may be less general than, e.g., Scala's, but switching them to be monadic rather than iterator based doesn't require better anonymous function support, it just requires changing which protocol they depend on.