On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 3:09 AM, Erik <pyt...@lucidity.plus.com> wrote:
> On 20/05/16 00:51, Gregory Ewing wrote:
>>
>> It's not so bad with "else" because you need to look back
>> to find out what condition the "else" refers to anyway.
>
>
> With my tongue only slightly in my cheek, if it was desirable to
> "fix"/clarify this syntax then I would suggest adding some optional
> (existing) trailing keywords to 'else' in this context that spells it out:
>
> for item in seq:
> if foo(item):
> break
> else if not break:
> nomatch()
With tongue firmly cheeked, you can always use the special `:#` operator:
for item in seq:
if foo(item):
break
else:# if no break:
nomatch()
This has the benefit that you can use whatever syntax you like after
the `:#`, and use it in any version of Python you want.
--
Zach
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
