[Skip Montanaro]
> 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>.
Guido can exempt himself from the PEP process if he feels like it. If he
does, I expect I'll be in the "retroactive PEP" business again.
> 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).
There are many ways a conditional expression could be spelled. This is
aiming at the easiest way to read; harder-to-read ways could be introduced
with less disruption of the kinds you're focusing on.
> The parens function pretty much as "{...}" in C, Java, Perl, etc.
Sorry, I don't see the resemblance.
> It's a step away from indentation-based block structure and toward
> delimiter-based block structure.
Ditto.
> 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.
I'm not concerned about 21 bad arguments versus 20 <wink>.
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