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
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
