Actually, I found it's rejected PEP: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3136/.
It looks like the first of several ideas there matches my ad hoc syntax. It *was* 2007, in distant pre-walrus memory. But I'm not sure the SC would revisit Guido's ruling. On Wed, Dec 4, 2019, 6:45 PM Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas < [email protected]> wrote: > On Dec 4, 2019, at 12:14, Mike Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> On 2019-12-04 11:05, David Mertz wrote: > >> I've often wanted named loops. I know approaches to this have been > proposed many times, and they all have their own warts. E.g. an ad hoc > pseudo code that may or may not match any previous proposal: > >> for x in stuff as outer: > >> for y in other_stuff as inner: > >> ... > >> if cond: > >> break outer > >> But we all manage without it. > > > > +1 Nice, find myself with that problem about once a year and it is > annoying to code around > > If you want to change this from an aside to a real proposal, it’s probably > worth starting a new thread (and providing a real-life use case—if we all > run into it once a year, many people probably won’t remember exactly what > it looked like when they last ran into it, and how much their workaround > bothered them). > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ > Message archived at > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/JUGJIGEMT7KZ345VYM4CWJD2XWPKPQEH/ > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/TU7ABLRE6M57TNQ2PQLBXSHAVCJJEZAU/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
