On 5/5/05, Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And does your proposal allow for "continue EXPR" as supported by PEP > 340? I can't see that it could, given that your proposal treats block > statements as not being loops.
Read PEP 340 again -- the "continue EXPR" syntax is orthogonal to the discussion -- PEP 340 adds it for *all* for loops, so for loops with the non-looping block statements would also be able to use it. > The looping behaviour is a (fairly nasty) wart, but I'm not sure I > would insist on removing it at the cost of damaging other features I > like. 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.) STeVe -- 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