Terry J. Reedy <[email protected]> added the comment:
I think this should be closed as 'rejected'.
1. I am strongly opposed to giving keywords strongly context-dependent
alternate meanings. I also don't think that the proposal could be parsed.
Currently, 'if' introduces a new, independent statement, and making it
dependent is not backwards compatible.
2. The proposal is unnecessary as the conditions can already be detected, and
being explicit is much more flexible than the proposal.
for i001 in iterable: pass # i001 is a new local name.
try:
i001
<loop executed at least once>
except NameError:
<loop never executed>
for i in range(5):
if i > 3:
break001 = True # New local.
break
try:
break001
< loop broke>
except NameError:
< loop exited normally>
----------
nosy: +terry.reedy
_______________________________________
Python tracker <[email protected]>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue41272>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
