Guido van Rossum wrote: > 1. I still can't decide on keyword vs. no keyword, but if we're going > to have a keyword, I haven't seen a better proposal than block. So > it's either block or nothing. I'll sleep on this. Feel free to start > an all-out flame war on this in c.l.py. ;-)
I quite like 'block', but can live with no keyword (since it then becomes a practical equivalent to user-defined statements). > 2. No else clause; the use case is really weak and there are too many > possible semantics. It's not clear whether to generalize from > for/else, or if/else, or what else. Agreed. The order I posted my list of semantic options was the order I thought of them, but I ended up agreeing with the votes Aahz posted. > 3. I'm leaning against Phillip's proposal; IMO it adds more complexity > for very little benefit. See my response to Phillip. I think there could be an advantage to it if it means that "for l in synchronized(lock)" raises an immediate error instead of silently doing the wrong thing. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- http://boredomandlaziness.skystorm.net _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com