On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 2:50 AM, Mike Miller <python-...@mgmiller.net> wrote: > > On 2018-04-19 23:52, Chris Angelico wrote: >> >> And are limited to conditions that check the truthiness/falsiness of >> the value you care about. So that works for re.match, but not for >> anything that might return -1 (a lot of C APIs do that, so if you're >> working with a thin wrapper, that might be all you get), and it'll >> encourage people to use this form when "is not None" would be more >> appropriate (setting up for a failure if ever the API returned a > > > From the previously discussed code, it might look like this: > > while (file.get_next_token() as token) != -1: > doc += token
Except that that's now a feature of expressions, NOT of the loop construct. And then you're left with: why not permit this everywhere? > That leaves what to do with "with". Guess I missed the part in the > discussion where we couldn't fit the syntax into it. Would requiring parens > here not work? > > with (expr() as name) as conman: > pass > > This should rarely be necessary or useful, correct? Perhaps disallow for > now. What would these mean? from contextlib import closing with open(fn) as f: with (open(fn) as f): with closing(urlopen(url)) as dl: with closing(urlopen(url) as dl): with (closing(urlopen(url)) as dl): One of these is not like the others... > Also the current "while" itself could be a bit simpler by making the > expression optional and slightly less verbose: > > while: > points = learner.get(static_hint) > if not points: > break As an alias for "while True"? Not a lot of benefit. I'd rather do something like this: while "get more learners": which at least tells the next reader that there is a condition, even if not a coded one. ChrisA _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
