RetroSearch Browse

Wed Jul 26 20:07:51 EDT 2017 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-July/148766.html

On Jul 27, 2017 02:38, "MRAB" <python at mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote:

On 2017-07-26 23:55, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:

>
> IMO,
>
> for item in sequence:
>      # block
> nobreak:   # or perhaps `if not break:`
>      # block
>
> would be clearer (if the syntax is necessary at all).
>

You couldn't have "if not break:" because that would look like the start of
an 'if' statement.

Do you mean as an implementation issue or for human readability?

"nobreak" would introduce a new keyword, but "not break" wouldn't.

Sure :)

-- Koos (mobile)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20170727/2d39522b/attachment.html>

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-July/148766.html below:

[Python-Dev] for...else