On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 10:16 PM Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 04:44 am, Michael Selik wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 6:11 AM Steven D'Aprano < > > steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > > > >> - run the for block > >> - THEN unconditionally run the "else" block > >> > > > > Saying "unconditionally" is a bit misleading here. As you say, it's > > conditioned on completing the loop without break/return/raise. > > It's also conditional on the OS not killing the Python process, conditional > on the CPU not catching fire, conditional on the user not turning the power > of, and conditional on the sun not exploding and disintegrating the entire > earth. > > In the absence of any event which interferes with the normal execution of > code by the Python VM, and in the absence of one of a very few > explicit "JUMP" statements which explicitly jump out of the compound > for...else statement, the else clause is unconditionally executed after the > for clause. > > Happy now? > I think most folks assume that their program will not run as expected if the sun explodes. Saying that ``raise``, ``break``, and ``return`` are "one of a very few explicit JUMP statements" implies that they are obscure. Listing them in addition to the sun exploding suggests that you think they are similarly unlikely and should be ignored as too bizarre to consider. In contrast, I think raise, break, and return are quite common. Further, I think you do too, despite what you are trying to imply. Maybe I read the tone wrong. It's tough sometimes to hear someone's tone of voice in email. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
