Heiko Wundram wrote:
...
> As I've noticed that I find myself typing the latter quite often
> in code I write, it would only be sensible to add the corresponding
> syntax for the for statement:
>
> for node in tree if node.haschildren():
> <do something with node>
>
> as syntactic sugar for:
>
> for node in tree:
> if not node.haschildren():
> continue
> <do something with node>
Mhhh, your unsugared form remind me of darks hours with primitive BASICS in my
youth - the kind Dijsktra commented on. Why don't you write
for node in tree:
if node.haschildren():
<do something with node>
?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
