On 28/07/2017 20:57, MRAB wrote:
On 2017-07-28 10:17, Michel Desmoulin wrote:
elif break and elif None: I'd like that very much. It's weird a break
the semantic of break and None, but it's in such a dark corner of Python
anyway I don't bother.
Surely it would not be "elif break", but "elif not break"?
To me, anything beginning with "else" or "elif" suggests an alternative
branch, not an additional one (YMMV):
if condition:
do_something
else:
do_something_completely_different
Therefore I would find "if not break" or even "and if not break" more
intuitive.
Best wishes
Rob Cliffe
Le 27/07/2017 à 21:19, MRAB a écrit :
On 2017-07-27 03:34, Mike Miller wrote:
On 2017-07-26 16:36, MRAB wrote:
"nobreak" would introduce a new keyword, but "not break" wouldn't.
Whenever I've used the for-else, I've put a # no-break right next to
it, to
remind myself as much as anyone else.
for...: not break: is the best alternative I've yet seen, congrats.
Perhaps in
Python 5 it can be enabled, with for-else: used instead for empty
iterables, as
that's what I expected the first few dozen times.
For empty iterables, how about "elif None:"? :-)
_______________________________________________
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/rob.cliffe%40btinternet.com
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
_______________________________________________
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
