[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> But then this article:
> http://tratt.net/laurie/tech_articles/articles/the_high_risk_of_novel_language_features
> has shown me that my problems with the 'else' of the 'for' mostly
> come from just its bad naming. The converge language is yet another
> very Python-like language, and it uses a better naming (the word
> "exhausted" is long and has a complex spelling for non-English
> speakers, so it's not perfect):
>
> for ...:
> ...
> exhausted:
> ...
> broken:
> ...
Rather than adding new keywords, I think the above would be better
spelled using the exception keywords::
for foo in bar_sequence:
# normal iteration
spam(foo)
if funky(foo):
break
except StopIteration, exc:
# the iterator stopped normally
eggs(exc)
else:
# the iterator exited abnormally, i.e. 'break'
sausage()
finally:
# always executed, even on 'break'
beans()
--
\ “[T]he question of whether machines can think [...] is about as |
`\ relevant as the question of whether submarines can swim.” |
_o__) —Edsger W. Dijkstra |
Ben Finney
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
