2023-09-05 18:26 UTC+02:00, Dom Grigonis :
> I like the idea of eliminating it if it was possible. This is one of my most
> common syntax errors (although mostly after function signature) and I am not
> C/C++ programmer. I am not sure about the core technical issues, but
> readability of code, such
On 08/09/2023 22:19, Christopher Barker wrote:
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 11:00 AM Barry Scott
wrote:
I see no need for del to return anything, you already have the
reference in foo.
The times that foo is dropped at module level are rare enough to
not need special syntax.
I agr
Celelibi writes:
> I just want to mention that without colons, one-liners could become
> ambiguous:
I have no sympathy for optional colons. No colons, no one-liners.
(Of course optional colons are a great strategy for trying it out, but
in your test programs you should maintain no-colon discip
I don’t think your example depicts the ambiguity well.
1. is the correct parsing of the Original1, 2. is the correct parsing of
Original2 and 3. is not correct for either of those.
Original1
> while a < b (x := c) - 42
Original2
> while a < b(x := c) - 42
1. In this case, it’s obviously this on
On 08/09/2023 22:19, Christopher Barker wrote:
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 11:00 AM Barry Scott
wrote:
I see no need for del to return anything, you already have the
reference in foo.
The times that foo is dropped at module level are rare enough to
not need special syntax.
I agr
