From 17c0462665a9e5cebba7ef4d11ce2010779b628f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: James Napora
 <85808999+TheGreatSageEqualToHeaven@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:37:47 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] Update syntax-list-comprehensions.md

---
 rfcs/syntax-list-comprehensions.md | 16 ++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)

diff --git a/rfcs/syntax-list-comprehensions.md b/rfcs/syntax-list-comprehensions.md
index 3abd5fe9..f764c43e 100644
--- a/rfcs/syntax-list-comprehensions.md
+++ b/rfcs/syntax-list-comprehensions.md
@@ -15,6 +15,22 @@ To solve these problems, I propose a `n for-in-do` expression form that is synta
 
 The `n for-in-do` expression must match ``<identifier> for <identifier> in <expr> do``
 
+Example:
+```lua
+-- normal
+local t = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}
+local onlyEven = {}
+for i,n in pairs(t) do
+    if n%2 == 0 then 
+      table.insert(onlyEven, n)
+    end
+end
+
+-- list comprehensions
+local t = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}
+local onlyEven = {local n for n in t do if n%2 == 0 then n} 
+```
+
 ## Drawbacks
 
 List comprehensions may be misused.