RetroSearch Browse

Thu May 5 23:34:38 CEST 2005 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-May/053421.html

On 5/5/05, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:
> And does your proposal allow for "continue EXPR" as supported by PEP
> 340? I can't see that it could, given that your proposal treats block
> statements as not being loops.

Read PEP 340 again -- the "continue EXPR" syntax is orthogonal to the
discussion -- PEP 340 adds it for *all* for loops, so for loops with
the non-looping block statements would also be able to use it.

> The looping behaviour is a (fairly nasty) wart, but I'm not sure I
> would insist on removing it at the cost of damaging other features I
> like.

I don't think it "damages" any features.  Are there features you still
think the non-looping proposal removes?  (I'm not counting orthogonal
feautres like "continue EXPR" which could easily be added as an
entirely separate PEP.)

STeVe
-- 
You can wordify anything if you just verb it.
        --- Bucky Katt, Get Fuzzy

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-May/053421.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 340: Breaking out.