On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Koos Zevenhoven <k7hoven at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote: >> >> On Sep 9, 2017, at 15:12, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote: >> > >> > I can't tell whether this was meant seriously, but I don't think it's >> > worth it. People can easily write their own dummy function and give it any >> > damn semantics they want. Let's reject the PEP. >> >> Alrighty then! (Yes, it was serious, but I claim post-sprint >> euphoria/delirium). >> > > Just for future reference, here's a slightly more serious comment: > > I think the "pass" statement wasn't mentioned yet, but clearly noop() would > be duplication of functionality. So maybe the closest thing without > duplication would be to make "pass" an expression which evaluates to a no-op > function, but which the compiler could perhaps optimize away if it's a > statement by itself, or is a builtin. As a language change, definitely not. But I like this idea for PYTHONBREAKPOINT. You set it to the name of a function, or to "pass" if you want nothing to be done. It's a special case that can't possibly conflict with normal usage. ChrisA
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