On 02/10/18 12:31, Jonathan Fine wrote:
Mikhail V has suggested "while:" as a shorthand for "while True:".
He's also provided a helpful list of URLs for related discussion. I'd
like to suggest another approach.
Before we hare off into the middle distance, could you show that there
is a problem
Mikhail V has suggested "while:" as a shorthand for "while True:".
He's also provided a helpful list of URLs for related discussion. I'd
like to suggest another approach.
My suggestion is to improved documentation and help. For me a search for
python "while True"
produces as the top result ht
I put the list of related discussion here, just in case.
Same suggestion:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-July/054914.html
Idea for the "loop" keyword:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2014-June/028202.html
(followed by the same suggestion from @Random832:
https://
On 26/09/18 18:23, Michael Selik wrote:
Guido has repeatedly (haha) rejected this proposal [0]. He has written
that he considered it, but decided that in practical code one almost
always loops over data, and does not want an arbitrary number of
iterations. The range object solves this problem.
Mikhail V writes:
> In the first linked discussion, e.g. Mr. D'Aprano and Mr. Coghlan (from my
> impression both from dev team) unambiguosly claimed that adding e.g.
> "loop" as a loop token lead to necessity of excluding ALL
> variables and functions/methods named "loop" from all sources.
>
On 2018-09-25 17:46, Mikhail V wrote:
I suggest allowing "while:" syntax for the infinite loop.
I.e. instead of "while 1:" and "while True:" notations.
I like this idea, and would have use for it.
-Mike
___
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@p
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 4:46 PM Mark E. Haase wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 8:47 PM Mikhail V wrote:
>>
>> As for statistics - IIRC someone gave statistics once, but the only
>> thing I can remember [...] "while 1/True" is used quite a lot in the
>
> This proposal would be a lot stronger if
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018, 19:30 David Mertz wrote:
> We also have:
>
> from itertools import count
> for i in count():
> ...
>
> If you want to keep track of how close to infinity you are. :-)
>
We also have:
from itertools import repeat
for i in repeat(...):
...
with kind regards,
-gdg
__
We also have:
from itertools import count
for i in count():
...
If you want to keep track of how close to infinity you are. :-)
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018, 12:24 PM Michael Selik wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018, 9:42 AM Tobias Kohn wrote:
>
>> Although I doubt it will really make it into Python's
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018, 9:42 AM Tobias Kohn wrote:
> Although I doubt it will really make it into Python's grammar, I am all +1
> for the idea of having "repeat" as a loop keyword in Python. Actually, I
> have been using "repeat" as a keyword in Python for quite some time now,
> and found it not o
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 8:47 PM Mikhail V wrote:
> As for statistics - IIRC someone gave statistics once, but the only
> thing I can remember -
> "while 1/True" is used quite a lot in the std lib, so the numbers
> exceeded my expectation
> (because I expected that it's used mostly in algorithms).
Hello,
Although I doubt it will really make it into Python's grammar, I am
all +1 for the idea of having "repeat" as a loop keyword in Python.
Actually, I have been using "repeat" as a keyword in Python for quite
some time now, and found it not only convenient, but also a great help
in
repeat could be only considered a keyword when it’s used as a loop
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 26, 2018, at 8:46 AM, Brice Parent wrote:
>
>> Le 26/09/2018 à 14:33, James Lu a écrit :
>> what about “repeat:”?
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
> I'm not sure it was on purpose, but you replied to me on
Le 26/09/2018 à 05:36, Chris Angelico a écrit :
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 1:29 PM Mikhail V wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 5:38 AM Chris Angelico wrote:
I like saying while "something": where the string describes the loop's
real condition. For instance, while "moar data": if reading from a
s
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 1:29 PM Mikhail V wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 5:38 AM Chris Angelico wrote:
> >
> >
> > I like saying while "something": where the string describes the loop's
> > real condition. For instance, while "moar data": if reading from a
> > socket, or while "not KeyboardIn
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 5:38 AM Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>
> I like saying while "something": where the string describes the loop's
> real condition. For instance, while "moar data": if reading from a
> socket, or while "not KeyboardInterrupt": if the loop is meant to be
> halted by SIGINT.
>
> Chr
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 12:35 PM Michael Selik wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 8:46 PM Mikhail V wrote:
> > I suggest allowing "while:" syntax for the infinite loop.
> > I.e. instead of "while 1:" and "while True:" notations.
> >
> > My opinion:
> > 1. I think it'd definitely improve clarity
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 8:46 PM Mikhail V wrote:
> I suggest allowing "while:" syntax for the infinite loop.
> I.e. instead of "while 1:" and "while True:" notations.
>
> My opinion:
> 1. I think it'd definitely improve clarity.
I prefer the explicit phrase, ``while True:``. Saying "while" with
I suggest allowing "while:" syntax for the infinite loop.
I.e. instead of "while 1:" and "while True:" notations.
IIRC, in the past this was mentioned in python-list discussions as
alternative for the
"while True:"/"while 1:" syntax. I even had impression that there was nothing
rational against
19 matches
Mail list logo
