Here is a proposed update: diff -r 633f51d10a67 pep-0007.txt --- a/pep-0007.txt Mon Jan 18 10:52:57 2016 -0800 +++ b/pep-0007.txt Tue Jan 19 12:11:44 2016 -0800 @@ -75,9 +75,9 @@ }
* Code structure: one space between keywords like ``if``, ``for`` and - the following left paren; no spaces inside the paren; braces may be - omitted where C permits but when present, they should be formatted - as shown:: + the following left paren; no spaces inside the paren; braces are + strongly preferred but may be omitted where C permits, and they + should be formatted as shown:: if (mro != NULL) { ... On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 at 11:37 Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > Let's not switch to either of those options. Visually I much prefer either > of these: > > if (test) { > blah; > } > > or > > if (test) > blah; > > over the versions with '{ blah; }' (regardless of whether it's on the same > line as 'if' or on the next line). It looks like the shorter versions are > mostly used inside macros, where aesthetics usually go out the door anyways > in favor of robustness. > > Since this discussion is never going to end until someone says "enough", > let me just attempt that (though technically it's Brett's call) -- let's go > with the strong recommendation to prefer > > if (test) { > blah; > } > > and stop there. > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote: > >> On 01/19/2016 08:56 AM, Jim J. Jewett wrote: >> >> That "otherwise" gets a bit awkward, but I like the idea. Perhaps >>> "braces must not be omitted, and should normally be formatted as >>> follows. ... Where other C styles would permit a braceless one-liner, >>> the expression and braces may be moved to a single line, as follows: " >>> >>> if (x > 5) { y++ } >>> >>> I think that is clearly better, but it may be *too* lightweight for >>> flow control. >>> >>> if (!obj) >>> { return -1; } >>> >>> does work for me, and I think the \n{} may actually be useful for >>> warning that flow control takes a jump. >>> >> >> Either of those two, with preference for the second on multiline ifs, >> seems quite readable to me. >> >> -- >> ~Ethan~ > > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Python-Dev mailing list >> Python-Dev@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev >> > Unsubscribe: >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org >> > > > > -- > --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/brett%40python.org >
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com