What's the rationale for the rewrite of unpacked list comprehensions

[sk-]

The rule rewriting unpacked list comprehensions does not seem to have been properly justified in either the PR or the original issue.

In my local testing list comprehension unpacking is ~3x faster than the generator code, so why is unpacking a generator the preferred modern way?

System
Python 3.12.4 (main, Jun 6 2024, 18:26:44) [Clang 15.0.0 (clang-1500.3.9.4)] on darwin
Mac OS Sonoma 14.5

$ python -m timeit "a,b = [i for i in range(2)]"
5000000 loops, best of 5: 78.3 nsec per loop
$ python -m timeit "a,b,c = [i for i in range(3)]"
5000000 loops, best of 5: 86.2 nsec per loop
$ python -m timeit "a,b,c,d = [i for i in range(4)]"
5000000 loops, best of 5: 92.7 nsec per loop
$ python -m timeit "a,b,c,d,e = [i for i in range(5)]"
2000000 loops, best of 5: 114 nsec per loop

$ python -m timeit "a,b = (i for i in range(2))"
1000000 loops, best of 5: 225 nsec per loop
$ python -m timeit "a,b,c = (i for i in range(3))"
1000000 loops, best of 5: 263 nsec per loop
$python -m timeit "a,b,c,d = (i for i in range(4))"
1000000 loops, best of 5: 286 nsec per loop
$ python -m timeit "a,b,c,d,e = (i for i in range(5))"
1000000 loops, best of 5: 321 nsec per loop

cc @graingert as he requested the feature.

[ulgens]

+1

Considering this rule was deprecated in ruff, I think it's better to apply the same here.

• Consider deprecating UP027 or improve its docs astral-sh/ruff#12754
• Deprecate UP027 astral-sh/ruff#12843