<avi.e.gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I had another crazy thought that I AM NOT ASKING anyone to do. OK?
>
> I was wondering about a sort of catch method you could use that generates a
> pseudo-signal only when the enclosed preceding loop exits normally as a
> sort of way to handle the ELSE need without the use of a keyword known by
> the language. All you would need is an object of the right kind that is
> thrown and optionally caught.
(untested)
try:
while condition:
if not do_something():
raise RuntimeError
except RuntimeError:
pass
else:
print('Loop exited normally')
Ironically, this again relies on the much-used "else" and adds the overhead of
exception handling. Also from a natural language perspective I find the "try
... except ... else" clause just as questionable as "while ... else." Since
we're discussing weird keywords: Maybe we can find another use for "finally."
In fact, one could argue that "while ... finally" could make just as much sense
as "while ... else" (but I won't).
> Of course, even if I fleshed this out and even if anyone thought it made
> sense, there is no such need now as Python has made a choice that meets the
> need even if few may dare use it or even know about it! LOL!
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
