> > for v in iter(get_something, INCOVENIENT_SENTINEL): > do_something(v) >
> There are many ways round my use case, all of them inelegant. That has to > be one of the less comprehensible alternatives. In for-loops (because they include an assignment already) we can improve this with more indicatively named functions in practice. -- Carl Smith carl.in...@gmail.com On 21 May 2018 at 14:14, Rhodri James <rho...@kynesim.co.uk> wrote: > On 21/05/18 12:29, Daniel Moisset wrote: > >> On 21 May 2018 at 12:05, Rhodri James <rho...@kynesim.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >>> Thanks for the analysis, but I'm afraid I must disagree with your >>> recommendation. It was the thought I first had when Chris came out with >>> his first draft of the PEP several months ago, but it's not enough to >>> cope >>> with my usual use cases. What I normally want is the Python equivalent >>> of: >>> >>> while ((v = get_something()) != INCONVENIENT_SENTINEL) >>> do_something(v); >>> >>> The condition expression itself is not what I want to capture; I need a >>> subexpression, which the "as" syntax won't give me. >>> >>> >>> That use case should be covered by >> >> for v in iter(get_something, INCOVENIENT_SENTINEL): >> do_something(v) >> > > There are many ways round my use case, all of them inelegant. That has to > be one of the less comprehensible alternatives. > > > -- > Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
