On 6/13/05, BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > do: > <block> > until <cond> > > Written like this it is not very obvious that the 'unil' is part of > the do-until suite. I also imagine it to be difficult to parse and it > breaks the rule that suites end when there is a dedentation. So, IMHO > using an indented 'until' is the least evil of a number of evils.
Not difficult to parse at all, nor un-Pythonic. Multi-part blocks abound in Python: if / elif / else, try / finally, etc. > > Why are you so excited about having until indented? You didn't give > > any examples with multiple occurrences. A single occurrence works just > > fine unindented, as PEP 315 has already shown. > > > > The indented until sounds like unnecessary syntactic sugar for 'if X: > > break' -- not very Pythonic. > > Yes, but grepping the stdlib produces over 300 hits for "while 1:" and > "while True:" combined. Some of those a "if <cond>: break" in the > middle and some would be better written as generators, but lots of > them would be rewritten as do-while's. So I think there is more than > enough use cases for syntactic sugar for do-while loops. The PEP 315 solution looks much better than an "until" that isn't what it looks like. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
