On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 1:53 AM, Rhodri James <rho...@kynesim.co.uk> wrote: > On 02/03/18 11:43, Chris Angelico wrote: >> >> After dozens of posts and a wide variety of useful opinions and >> concerns being raised, here is the newest version of PEP 572 for your >> debating pleasure. > > > I haven't said this yet, so thanks Chris for putting this all together. Even > if the result is a rejected PEP, at least we have everything in one place.
No problem. And I agree, a rejected PEP is still a successful result here. (Am I going to get a reputation for captaining dead PEPs?) >> # Compound statements usually enclose everything... >> if (re.match(...) as m): >> print(m.groups(0)) >> print(m) # NameError > > > This (and the equivalent in while loops) is the big win in the PEP, in my > opinion. The number of ugly loops I've had to write in Python because I > can't write "while (something_to_do() as event):"... +1 on this. > >> # Using a statement-local name >> stuff = [[(f(x) as y), x/y] for x in range(5)] > > > As Paul said, the asymmetry of this bothers me a lot. It doesn't read > naturally to me. -1 on this. Interesting. I fully expected to get a lot more backlash for the if/while usage, but a number of people are saying that that's the only (or the biggest) part of this proposal that they like. ChrisA _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
