[_a_a_a_]

> But once they start getting complicated - for example nested iteration - they start to look fugly.

Then don't do it. Un-nest them always. Simples.

> I get access to reduce[1] which is substantially more powerful than map and filter

Reduce is orthogonal to map/filter.

> Yes, I know that python has map, filter, and reduce. But they're all gimped

No they're not: map [x*2 for x in y], [x*2 for x in y if x > 3] (Syntax not tested, am a bit rusty so may be wrong). Okay, you're not providing a function as a parameter but most of the time with map and filter, that parameter is a constant function not a variable so I still hold this is true. Reduce would be nice as a comprehension, if that's possible.

> by the way python implements lambdas. Which is sort of necessary due to meaningful whitespace

I don't believe whitespace is the problem here. They could fix that pretty easily. I'm really unhappy with python's expression-only lambdas, they do suck.

[nordsieck]

> Then don't do it. Un-nest them always. Simples.

Sure, that's an option. It's also an option to only write for loops.

I'd prefer to do neither of those. And I get my way in languages that have ergonomic support for map, reduce, and filter.

> Reduce is orthogonal to map/filter.

Reduce is a superset of map/filter.

> No they're not: map [x2 for x in y], [x2 for x in y if x > 3]

I meant the actual map, filter, and reduce functions that are part of python, not list comprehensions that are, admittedly, a fusion of map and filter.

[_a_a_a_]

> Sure, that's an option. It's also an option to only write for loops.

I gave you a solution that solves readability and costs you nothing in performance, and you reject it without saying why. *shrug*

> Reduce is a superset of map/filter

Edit: you're saying that reduce can be abused into a map and a filter. Yes, okay I take your point.

[deleted]

> I meant the actual map, filter, and reduce functions that are part of python

I think you meant "not part of python", I guess I'd agree on that, but then again it's irrelevant. I don't care what mechanism you use to iterate over a list and apply a function to every item, whether it be a comprehension or a map function. The end result is the same, and I'd argue that comprehensions are, or can be, a little cleaner syntactically.

[nordsieck]

> I think you meant "not part of python"

I meant part of python.

https://docs.python.org/3/library/functions.html#map

https://docs.python.org/3/library/functions.html#filter

https://docs.python.org/3/library/functools.html (sadly, I can't link to reduce here)

[_a_a_a_]

Comprehensions are part of python, the language. Map/filter/reduce as you've indicated, isn't, it's clearly a library.

In addition you previously complain that python doesn't have what you want "I get access to reduce... [in Ruby]" then prove that it does have it, so I don't see what you're saying.

> Clojure is all of the built in functional bits.

Are you saying map, filter, reduce are implemented in the core language and not an add-on library?

[nordsieck]

> Comprehensions are part of python, the language. Map/filter/reduce as you've indicated, isn't, it's clearly a library.

I guess, it's true that reduce is part of an included library. But map and filter are "built-in functions". I guess you could make a distinction between those and the language proper, but that's splitting some pretty fine hairs.

> In addition you previously complain that python doesn't have what you want "I get access to reduce... [in Ruby]" then prove that it does have it, so I don't see what you're saying.

Here's what I said:

"Yes, I know that python has map, filter, and reduce. But they're all gimped by the way python implements lambdas."

> Are you saying map, filter, reduce are implemented in the core language and not an add-on library?

If you look at the clojure cheetsheet[1], you can see all of the built-ins (most are functions, some are macros) that Clojure supports (as well as some included libraries).

map, filter, and reduce are all built ins. I strongly doubt that they're supported at the syntax level, but that's kind of lisp's shtick - even stuff like "+" is a built in function, and not "part of the language".

---

1. https://clojure.org/api/cheatsheet

[_a_a_a_]

I think you're being slightly harder on python than is entirely necessary but you've made your point well.