Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
python: capture flow through comprehensions #17577
python: capture flow through comprehensions #17577
Changes from all commits
fc2dc28
294092b
72530a8
d4ea62e
310819d
3ef05a6
f9f46f0
ded3974
fb07a56
7392d18
a22ea6c
438e664
dacc0ab
e0a3c8a
2b6aab1
64890a1
f39dc41
38b1eb7
977767b
a4c1a62
6f5b949
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm surprised that we could just add
yield
s as aExtractedReturnNode
... Did you consider using differentReturnKind
to modelreturn
/yield
statements? (my impression was we would need to do that)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
With the new yield store step, where the yielded element is stored to the
yield
expression, it seems fine to simply use the yield as a normal return. We are returning a new thing and we can control its content. I have seen C# use a different return kind for variables that already exist but are written to.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I understood that as: since I got
yield
working without messing with the ReturnKinds, I didn't really investigate that path much.I guess that's fine 👍 I'm still a little curious how the approach would have worked out 🤔 (but it's not super important so 🤷)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
did you resolve this TODO?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I did not. My intention was to leave it for later if we did not observe weird flow in the tests or bad performance.