On Jan 1, 2020, at 13:23, Random832 <random...@fastmail.com> wrote: > > Neither of these constructs seems to be particularly useful outside the other > one,
Yes, and you already quoted me as saying that. > which suggests to me they should not be orthogonal in the way you have > proposed. Is there a good reason for wanting them to be, or do you just see > that as the best way to get a nice looking syntax? What I’m trying to do is get a nice looking syntax *with the smallest possible set of changes*. And I think these are candidates for that set. I’m not actually proposing either or both at this point. Because the nice looking syntax may turn out not to work, or the syntax may not be nice enough, or whatever, but I’m only going to discover that by trying and then sharing the result. But the other worry is that, no matter how nice it works out, if the small changes are themselves unacceptable it won’t matter. And that’s what I think other people can point out in advance. If the only problem with “if try” is that it has no compelling use on its own, that’s fine for now. But if, say, it’s syntactically ambiguous, or reads confusing to humans in even some reasonable-seeming case, or the try-expression PEP is up for reconsideration and incompatible with it, etc., that’s *not* fine; anything I build that requires “if try” will not be acceptable, so it’s not worth exploring further. _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/AMDMRHLV7V6BEN6SOMI3NP7RTTD7FJQ3/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
