On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 14:13:46 +0300
Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> wrote:
> > for x in sequence:
> > print('loop')
> >
> > Is that meant to print 'loop' each time around the loop, or just
> > once, at the end of the loop?
>
> I don't see an ambiguity: obviously the print call takes place after
> finishing the loop.
It's ambiguous to the reader what was actually meant. Forcing a "pass"
there shows the reader that the empty block was not a mistake.
Explicit is better than implicit.
> I wonder if there is any true case of ambiguity. I guess this is all
> about an enforced aesthetic principle: GvR doesn't like the looks of
> an empty block.
I don't think that he would be alone.
> Actually, the requirement of a dummy statement is a slight annoyance
> for the programmer. After deleting a statement, you must see if you
> have to put in a pass statement. And after adding a statement, you
> may feel the urge to remove the redundant pass statement.
If you allow empty blocks and you use it I hope that you would add a
comment so that the reader knows that you meant it.
for x in sequence: # this is an empty block
Is that better than "pass"?
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain
System Administrator, Vex.Net
http://www.Vex.Net/ IM:da...@vex.net
VoIP: sip:da...@vex.net
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
