> On 20 Jul 2020, at 09:56, Alex Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:36 AM Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> May I repeat: Spelling 'if break:' and 'if not break:' rather than say
> 'on_break:' etc. would avoid adding new keywords.
>
> I don't know what to do about the zero iterations case, though.
>
> It could be that if `break` appears somewhere that an expression is expected,
> it becomes an expression with the value 0 or 1 (or False or True) to indicate
> the number of breaks that happened in the previous loop, and similarly some
> other bit of code involving keywords can become the number of iterations of
> the previous loop. This could be represented by `for`, `len(for)`, `pass`,
> etc. So one might write:
>
> ```
> for x in ...:
> ...
> if not pass:
> ...
> elif pass == 1:
> ...
> else:
> ...
> ```
To avoid the ambiguity of if after for why not follow for with elif?
for x in ...:
...
elif break:
# break was called
elif not break:
# looped at least once and break not used
elif pass:
# same as else today
# loop'ed no times
(I always have to think what else means after a for).
Barry
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
> Message archived at
> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/N65ZZJPLN6LBPQOURDKJNXWGT64T3ZZK/
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/QBT52KIMFB53HEPQV4CBUN7NPHUZEFL4/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
