# For any & every

**URL:** <https://discuss.python.org/t/for-any-every/53302>\
**Category:** Python Help\
**Created:** [May 14, 2024, 2:38pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/for-any-every/53302 "2024-05-14T14:38:23Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nineteendo](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/nineteendo/32/19122_2.png) [@Nineteendo](https://discuss.python.org/u/Nineteendo)\
**Post date:** [May 14, 2024, 4:26pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/for-any-every/53302/4 "2024-05-14T16:26:20Z")

</div>

> [@Alternative call syntax](https://discuss.python.org/t/alternative-call-syntax/53126/16):
>
> All you are doing, as has already been mentioned, is using up people’s patience with you to the point where you’re going to start getting ignored and your ideas dismissed.

Sorry, it feels like I already used up your patience with me in my previous posts. So, you just dismissed this one without reading it. That’s fine, focus on improving `pathlib` instead of wasting your time with my ideas.

* * *

> [@Alternative call syntax](https://discuss.python.org/t/alternative-call-syntax/53126/16):
>
> Once you’ve established a reputation like that, then you might find that people are receptive to proposals from you - especially if you take on board all the experience you’ve gained watching how other people’s proposals have fared, and make your own proposal as good as you possibly can.

1. Unlike some other suggestions for improving comprehensions, I’m proposing a faster alternative to constructs which are _widely used_.
2. The notation is natural, corresponding to logical expressions:
  - \forall x \in A: x \>= 0
  - \exists x \in A: x \< 0.

3. There isn’t an obvious way to write these checks that’s both fast and concise, this proposal tries to address that.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/for-any-every/53302)._