On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 5:56 PM <vito.detul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi
> Today I've added a couple of lines in my source code, and I'm very ashamed of
> it.
> it "runs", and I know what it does (for now), but it's "too clever".
> I have "abused" the "else" clause of the loops to makes a break "broke" more
> loops
>
>
> for i in range(10):
> print(f'i: {i}')
> for j in range(10):
> print(f'\tj: {j}')
> for k in range(10):
> print(f'\t\tk: {k}')
>
> if condition(i, j, k):
> break
>
> else: # if there weren't breaks in the inner loop,
> continue # then make anoter outer loop,
> break # else break also the outer one
>
> else:
> continue
> break
>
> the "magic" is in that repeated block... it's so convoluted to read... still
> it's very useful to omit "signals" variables or the need to refactor it in a
> function with an explicit return or other solutions.
>
> is there any chance to extends the python grammar to allow something like
>
>
> for i in range(10) and not break:
> print(f'i: {i}')
> for j in range(10) and not break:
> print(f'\tj: {j}')
> for k in range(10):
> print(f'\t\tk: {k}')
>
> if condition(i, j, k):
> break
>
>
> with the semantics of break a loop if an inner loop "broke"?
>
Hmm. I'm not enamoured of it.
My normal solution is to put the whole thing into a function and use
"return" to bail out. But sometimes that's not possible; sometimes you
do need a better solution. I'm not sure this one is it, though.
ChrisA
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
