> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 09:02:23PM -0500, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > v = e: > > S > > > > would be equivalent to > > > > v = e(T) [Armin] > Just to throw more oil on the fire, note that this looks quite a lot like > > for v in e: > S Huh? Not to my eyes. Unless you basically ignore all keywords, in which case there's no difference between an if and a while block either. That doesn't seem to be a useful POV. > For example, it is quite messy but you can already define > 'newproperty' to let you do the following in 2.2: > > class X: > for count in newproperty: > def get(self): > return self._count > def set(self, value): > self._count = value Messy is the word. I don't think this existence proof will convince anyone that we don't need a new feature then. > Similarily you can "almost" already write the following for locks: > > for _ in acquired(lock): > ... > > i.e. you can define acquired() so that the loop is done exactly > once, and the lock released at the end. It doesn't really work > because you there is no place in acquired() you can put the > try:...finally:. > > Just-drawing-parallels'ly yours, I'm confused. You & Samuele both sometimes have a rhetorical style that leaves me with no idea of the point you're trying to make. Please say it outright. --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