Chris Rebert wrote:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Lo'oris <loo...@gmail.com> wrote:
I've found this email, back from 10 years ago:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/1999-September/009983.html
I guess it went unnoticed, because that proposal looks really
intresting.
I think it went unnoticed because it is not very good, once looked at.
• break labels have been refused into python
• we can do it anyway using exceptions
So the proposal is not needed
• this is a proposal for something better, resembling "the exception
way" and much more powerful and python-like than break labels
It amounts to duplicating raise x...exception x as break x....continue x
in the name of aesthetics and supposed efficiency. There would be no new
functionality nor any abbreviation of code. The semantics of
break/continue as specific loop subcommands would be changed to 'use
anyplace'. The OP gives as a reason the possibility of a typo creating a
raise x ... except y mis-match. But a break x ... continue y mismatch is
equally likely.
Anyway, I think the example given would be better written with immediate
assignment followed by simple break, rather than the proposed delayed
assignment.
The exception example as given would have to be rewritten to work in 3.x.
You're gonna have to wait 18-24 months:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3003/
Also, the python-ideas list might be a better forum for discussing
this than the general-interest list:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
This is a fine place to discuss it.
Terry Jan Reedy
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
