On Jul 27, 2017 02:38, "MRAB" <pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote:
On 2017-07-26 23:55, Koos Zevenhoven wrote: > > IMO, > > for item in sequence: > # block > nobreak: # or perhaps `if not break:` > # block > > would be clearer (if the syntax is necessary at all). > You couldn't have "if not break:" because that would look like the start of an 'if' statement. Do you mean as an implementation issue or for human readability? "nobreak" would introduce a new keyword, but "not break" wouldn't. Sure :) -- Koos (mobile)
_______________________________________________ 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
