On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:34 AM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Victor Stinner > <victor.stin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Le 8 févr. 2016 8:14 PM, "Guido van Rossum" <gu...@python.org> a écrit : >>> Hum. I'm not excited by this idea. It is not bad syntax. >> >> Do you see an use case for "constant statements" other than strings and >> ellipsis? > > The same use case as for all dead code: it could be a placeholder for > something better in the future.
Allowing dead code is useful as it allows complex code to be left in place. It can be risky removing the code. Unused literals are stupefyingly simple statements. A line of merely a constant, e.g. 'True' or '1', does not present the same risks or benefits. That it is a hope for something better? It could be easily replaced with 'pass', '...', a comment, and/or a string literal explaining what needs improving. > It could also be generated code where the generator expects the > optimizer to remove it (or doesn't care). Why shouldnt a user see that it is generating such code? There is a decent chance that it is a bug in the generated code. fwiw, this is a syntax warning in Ruby - "unused literal ignored", since 2003 (5aadcd9). -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ 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
