I think there is essentially zero chance of that. My understanding is that
Guido regrets having "else" to begin with.
But this should work
broken = True
for x in it:
if complicated_calculation_1():
break
complicated_calculation_2()
if complicated_calculation_3():
break
else:
broken = False
if broken:
cleanup()
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 1:26 PM, acdr <mail.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently, in various places in my code, I have the equivalent of:
>
> for x in it:
> if complicated_calculation_1():
> cleanup()
> break
> complicated_calculation_2()
> if complicated_calculation_3():
> cleanup()
> break
>
> Obviously, I'm repeating myself by having two separate calls to
> cleanup(). I can't really see a nicer way to do this. (Though I see
> plenty of non-nice ways to do this, such as adding "broken = True" in
> front of every "break", and then after the loop is done, have an "if
> broken" section.) Other solutions that I'm not particularly fond of
> can be found on stackexchange, where someone else is trying to do the
> same thing:
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3296044/opposite-of-python-for-else
>
> I'm wondering if there is a demand for expanding the "for...else"
> functionality to be expanded also have a block of code that only gets
> called if the loop is broken out of. I.e.:
>
> for x in it:
> ...
> then:
> # "break" was called
> ...
> else:
> # "break was not called
> ...
> --
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
