This is all PEP material now. Tim, do you want to own the PEP? It seems just up your alley! > Cool! Can we resist adding > > if key:value in dict > > for "parallelism"? (I know I can ...) That's easy to resist because, unlike ``for key:value in dict'', it's not unambiguous: ``if key:value in dict'' is already legal syntax currently, with 'key' as the condition and 'value in dict' as the (not particularly useful) body of the if statement. > > (And why didn't we think of this before?) > > Best guess: we were focused exclusively on sequences, and a colon just > didn't suggest itself in that context. Second-best guess: having finally > approved one of these gimmicks, you finally got desperate enough to make it > work <wink>. I'm certainly more comfortable with just ``for key in dict'' than with the whole slow of extensions using colons. But, again, that's for the PEP to fight over. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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