Guido> Problem with this is that there's currently lots of code out
Guido> there that was recently modified to read
Guido> try:
Guido> True
Guido> except NameError:
Guido> True = 1
Guido> False = 0
Guido> That would become a syntax error if True/False were true
Guido> constants. :-(
> Hmmm... Those code blocks would only be executed on older versions of the
> interpreter. Is there some way to use that knowledge to finesse the
> problem? It would be a real hack, but if the compiler recognized precisely
> the above construct (or at least assignment in an except block guarded by
> NameError), it could shut up about the assignment.
Would it be simpler to institute a special rule that True = 1 is silently
ignored, but True = anything else generates an error message? Or am I
overlooking something important?
If you want to handle assigning to True an expression whose value is
known only at run time, translate it into
if expression != 1 :
raise Exception, "Attempt to assign invalid value to True"
which would give a run-time error without costing cycles anywhere else.
Paul Hughett
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