On 17.03.2016 01:27, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
That post describes the motivating use-case for the introduction of "if...else", and why break skips the "else" clause:for x in data: if meets_condition(x): break else: # raise error or do additional processing It might help to realise that the "else" clause is misnamed. It should be called "then": for x in data: block then: block The "then" (actually "else") block is executed *after* the for-loop, unless you jump out of that chunk of code by raising an exception, calling return, or break. As a beginner, it took me years of misunderstanding before I finally understood for...else and while...else, because I kept coming back to the thought that the else block was executed if the for/while block *didn't* execute.
That's true. I needed to explain this to few people and I always need several attempts/starts to get it right in a simple statement:
'If you do a "break", then "else" is NOT executed.' I think the "NOT" results in heavy mental lifting.
I couldn't get code with for...else to work right and I didn't understand why until finally the penny dropped and realised that "else" should be called "then".
That's actually a fine idea. One could even say: "finally". Best, Sven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
