On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Tim Peters wrote: > If I didn't know better <wink>, I'd say there's an actual consensus here: > it seems we would all agree to "(if cond then true else false)" spelling. Actually, i'm afraid i don't. I initially chose the "then/else" spelling specifically because "if" flags the eye to the beginning of a statement. My line of thinking was, "'then' for expressions, 'if' for statements." > I had already channeled that for the group's benefit <wink>. For 1.6, > without absurd overloading of some other keyword (like "if cond def true > ..."), that seems to leave > > (if cond: true else false) Sorry, i like that even less. It seems to abuse the colon, for the colon (to me) signals both (a) This Is A Statement and (b) This Begins A Block, neither of which are true here. > How much is that hated? I hate it myself, not least because I'd have to > change IDLE's parser to guarantee it couldn't get confused by the colon > here: > > big = ( > if x >= y: > x else y) I consider this a symptom of the colon-abuse i just described... > BTW, I'm not entirely convinced "then" would have to be a keyword to make > "if x then y else z" work: couldn't the grammar use WORD and verify it's > specifically "then" later? Quite possibly, yes -- though i figured it wouldn't be *too* large an issue to make "then" a keyword, since i can't imagine anyone naming a symbol "then" except under the most freakish of circumstances. A quick check shows no symbol by that name in any of the Python scripts or modules we have here. -- ?!ng
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