> [Guido, on {for,while}/else]
> ...
> > The question remains whether Python would be easier to learn without
> > them. And if so, the question would remain whether that's offset by
> > their utility for experienced developers. All hard to assess
> > impartially!
[Tim saves the day]
> That's what I'm here for. I like loop "else" clauses, but have to
> admit that (a) I rarely use them; (b) most of the time I use them, my
> control flow is on the way to becoming so convoluted that I'm going to
> rewrite the whole function soon anyway; and, (c) I've often misread
> code that uses them, mentally attaching the "else" to a nearby "if"
> instead.
>
> I also suspect that if they weren't in the language already, a PEP to
> introduce them would fail, because
>
> still_looking = True
> some loop:
> if found it:
> still_looking = False
> break
> if still_looking:
> # what would have been in the "else" clause
>
> is clear and easy to write without it.
OTOH I don't particularly like code that requires flag variables; they
often make me squirm because the same condition (flag) is tested
multiple times where it could be tested just once if more
sophisticated flow control (e.g. an else clause :) was available.
How would a PEP to *remove* this feature fare today?
Unhelpfully,
--
--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