Tim> [Skip Montanaro]
>> Is the thread in c.l.py on conditional expressions leading in the
>> direction of actually getting added to the language, or wer Tim's
>> experiments done just to show it's possible?
Tim> We (PythonLabs) were wondering whether to reserve any more keywords
Tim> for 2.2. "then" was a natural candidate, for this specific use.
Tim> Guido and I have been playing with it. If it proves to be a
Tim> low-hassle, low-impact change that works well, the intent is to get
Tim> it in for 2.2b1 later this week. Doesn't look *likely* to me at
Tim> this point, but don't know.
Regardless whether or not you think this could make it into 2.2b1, I hope if
you proceed it will get a PEP a reasonable amount of time before the CVS
checkin... <0.1 wink>.
It seems downright weird to me that the syntactic baggage necessary to write
a conditional expression is greater the the baggage necessary to write an if
statement (new "then" keyword, parens required for disambiguation). The
parens function pretty much as "{...}" in C, Java, Perl, etc. It's a step
away from indentation-based block structure and toward delimiter-based block
structure. If you add it, I think it will be harder to justify the lack of
delimiter-based block stucture at the statement level. It will just be one
more argument in the arsenal of people whose knee-jerk reaction to Python's
block structure is to whine about it.
Skip
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