On 4/27/06, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Crutcher Dunnavant wrote: > > Having been shot down so hard on my request to bring for loops into > > symetry with list comprehensions, I have a new proposal - stackable > > blocks. > > > > This is a very _small_ amount of syntax sugar, the basic idea is that > > any block headers can be stacked on the same line. This changes no > > semantics, nor does it change ordering, or add new keywords, it just > > changes a tiny bit of the grammar for whitespace/block parsing. > > > > So for instance this: > > > > for file in open_files: > > if file.readable(): > > ... > > > > can be spelled like this. > > > > for file in open_files: if file.readable(): > > ... > > Gak. I think it was a Freudian anti-slip that you used "readable" in the > above example ;)
Ha. ha-ha. No. > Also, you know that Guido at one time said he wanted to forbid the > "if x: y" suite style? I don't really care. What I really want is to be able to say: CONTEXTUAL-TRAVERSAL-SPEC: TRAVERSAL CODE I don't really care how it gets spelled. In the current system, I _have_ to break the context spec up on multiple lines, _despite_ the fact that we have list comprehension semantics. I'd like to see a solution. This one seems much simpler than the list comprehension semantic loops I proposed earlier, so I thought it would recieve some sympathy. Aparently it doesn't, which kinda bums me. -- Crutcher Dunnavant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> littlelanguages.com monket.samedi-studios.com _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
