On 2018-04-19 23:52, Chris Angelico wrote:
And are limited to conditions that check the truthiness/falsiness of
the value you care about. So that works for re.match, but not for
anything that might return -1 (a lot of C APIs do that, so if you're
working with a thin wrapper, that might be all you get), and it'll
encourage people to use this form when "is not None" would be more
appropriate (setting up for a failure if ever the API returned a

From the previously discussed code, it might look like this:

    while (file.get_next_token() as token) != -1:
        doc += token

Shouldn't be needed often, but I find it readable enough.

More generally, I've been -0 on this idea because I've come to appreciate Python's less-clever i.e. "dumb" loop syntax, and ":=" combined with assignment-expressions doesn't feel like Python at all but rather Pascal and C had a love-child, haha.

I could mildly support the "as" syntax however, since it is so darn readable and has analogues in other places.

That leaves what to do with "with". Guess I missed the part in the discussion where we couldn't fit the syntax into it. Would requiring parens here not work?

    with (expr() as name) as conman:

This should rarely be necessary or useful, correct?  Perhaps disallow for now.

On assignment to names/subscripts, just names sounds simpler for the first 

Also the current "while" itself could be a bit simpler by making the expression optional and slightly less verbose:

        points = learner.get(static_hint)
        if not points:

Thanks for the hard work,
Python-Dev mailing list

Reply via email to