Ken Peek wrote: >Thank you for the history lesson. My question still stands-- I >don't care if it will be implemented or not. I am looking for >what would be the correct "Pythonic" construct if it WERE implemented... >"Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote: >> This has been discussed ad nauseum for years with no agreement. If and >> when maillist or newsgroup archives are available, you can review at your >> leisure. But that's Terry's point. No one has decided on a "Pythonic" construct, and there have been arguments on that topic. Nor did he mention anything about implementation. I just did a www.python.org/search for "do while until". The first hit was to: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=do+while+until&hl=en&lr=&group=comp.lang.p ython.*&safe=off&rnum=1&seld=943960637&ic=1 and since I don't know if that link will really work, the thread is named "why no "do : until"? and took place last December. (There are older threads, but not indexed by Google.) The consensus seems to be that there is no Pythonic syntax for a do/until construct. It boils down to indentation. Both your suggestions were proposed and it was decided that they didn't make sufficient sense: do: spam until cond was found to be nothing more than an alias for while 1: spam if not cond: break and not worth introducing new syntax. The other proposal is: do: spam until cond but this "does not fit a pythonic pattern for statements" (Martijn Faassen). Reread the full thread for details. So why didn't you believe that this exact history you were looking for already existed in the easily searchable archives, even after Terry pointed it out? Andrew dalke at acm.org
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