On 5/6/05, Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't think it "damages" any features. Are there features you still > > think the non-looping proposal removes? (I'm not counting orthogonal > > feautres like "continue EXPR" which could easily be added as an > > entirely separate PEP.) > > I *am* specifically referring to these "orthogonal" features. Removal > of looping by modification of PEP 340 will do no such "damage", I > agree - but removal by accepting an updated PEP 310, or a new PEP, > *will* (unless the "entirely separate PEP" you mention is written and > accepted along with the non-looping PEP - and I don't think that will > happen).
So, just to make sure, if we had another PEP that contained from PEP 340[1]: * Specification: the __next__() Method * Specification: the next() Built-in Function * Specification: a Change to the 'for' Loop * Specification: the Extended 'continue' Statement * the yield-expression part of Specification: Generator Exit Handling would that cover all the pieces you're concerned about? I'd be willing to break these off into a separate PEP if people think it's a good idea. I've seen very few complaints about any of these pieces of the proposal. If possible, I'd like to see these things approved now, so that the discussion could focus more directly on the block-statement issues. STeVe [1] http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0340.html -- You can wordify anything if you just verb it. --- Bucky Katt, Get Fuzzy _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
