Guido van Rossum wrote: > I think I'd prefer (if <expr> then <expr> else <expre>) i.e. no colons. > None of the other expression forms (list comprehensions and generator > expressions) involving statement keywords use colons. While I like the looks of the form without colons better, I can't quite follow this argument for it. In LCs and GEs, colons wouldn't make any sense in the first place because the expression controlled by "for" and "if" is written before it: [expression(x) for x in y]. Just where would anyone put a colon there, anyway? A colon does make sense if something follows it, as is currently the case in lambda expressions. It would also be the case in an (if x: y else: z) form. I have a feeling that trying to make all expression forms which happen to use statement keywords colon-free is seeking an artificial consistency. I'm happy to be proven wrong, though. +1 on the idea of introducing a conditional expression in the first place, though. -- Thomas
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