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:
pass
This should rarely be necessary or useful, correct? Perhaps disallow for now.
On assignment to names/subscripts, just names sounds simpler for the first
round.
Also the current "while" itself could be a bit simpler by making the expression
optional and slightly less verbose:
while:
points = learner.get(static_hint)
if not points:
break
Thanks for the hard work,
-Mike
_______________________________________________
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
