[about "and while", and generalization to "and if"] [Christian Tismer] > Yes I'm still ashamed on that. It may be that Guido was about > to say "perhaps" (as worthy as a woman's "perhaps", you know), > but I went too far and killed it by "and if". Sigh... > SORRY! Don't apologize to me! I *thank* you -- "and while" is excessively novel (a phrase I'm using excessively often lately <wink>, but one that I think captures the things about Python I like least). The world has many conventional, perfectly clear ways to spell this kind of thing already. The only thing stopping Python from adopting one is Keyword Fear (which I share, but not to the extent of eternal paralysis <0.9 wink>). > ... > Oh, much simpler: We have it all ready :) > > Just make "while 1:" into a keyword, like the #end block delimiters. It's a needless initial barrier to language acceptance, but more importantly it's plainly bad pedagogics to model a "loop and a half" via a construct that *says* "do this while true", i.e. do this forever. Not a disaster, but surely deserving of the "wart" Andrew gives it. at-heart-it's-a-simple-problem-with-a-simple-fix-ly y'rs - tim
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