Skip Montanaro a écrit : > [...] > > Yeah, but "block synchronized(v1)" doesn't look like a loop. I think this > might be a common stumbling block for people using this construct. > > Skip > Well, this can be a problem, because indeed the black-statement introduce a new loop construct in Python. That's why I advocated some time ago against the introduction of a new name. IMHO, the for-loop syntax can be really used instead of blocks as its behavior if exactly the one of a for-loop if the iterator is an iterator-for-for and the current for-loop cannot be used with iterator-for-blocks. The main problem with this syntax is the use of the blocks for things that are not loops (like the synchronize object)! And they are, indeed, quite common ! (or they will be :) ). Pierre -- Pierre Barbier de Reuille INRA - UMR Cirad/Inra/Cnrs/Univ.MontpellierII AMAP Botanique et Bio-informatique de l'Architecture des Plantes TA40/PSII, Boulevard de la Lironde 34398 MONTPELLIER CEDEX 5, France tel : (33) 4 67 61 65 77 fax : (33) 4 67 61 56 68
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