The following was supposed to go to the list: 18:29 Gerald Britton: > Yes you could have long lines, but you wouldn't have to use it. You > could still code it up as you would today. It might be convenient for > shorter expressions though. > > 12:12 PM Ludvig Ericson: >> On Jan 21, 2009, at 16:51, Gerald Britton wrote: >> >>> for <item> in <iterable> [while [<predicate> | not <predicate>]: >>> <suite> >> >> (Sorry for just sort of popping in to the list.) >> >> That would make for some very, very long lines. I for one wouldn't >> like >> seeing: >> >>>>> for cart_item in current_user.cart.new_items \ >> ... while cart_item.cant_imagine_more: >> ... <body> >> >> I realize that the other approach--an immediate if-break--wouldn't >> look >> great either, but it wouldn't be cramming that much stuff into one >> line.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4