On 16.03.2016 13:57, Peter Otten wrote:
I'd put that the other way round: syntactical support for every pattern
would make for a rather unwieldy language. You have to choose carefully, and
this requirement could easily be fulfilled by a function, first in your
personal toolbox, then in a public libary, then in the stdlib.
If you don't like exceptions implement (or find) something like
items = peek(items)
if items.has_more():
# at least one item
for item in items:
...
else:
# empty
Only if such a function is used a lot or cannot be conceived without severe
shortcumings adding to the syntax should be considered. The (hypothetical)
question you should answer: which current feature would you throw out to
make room for your cool new addition?
I am glad you asked. ;-)
I would re-use the "for-else" for this. Everything I thought I could
make use of the "-else" clause, I was disappointed I couldn't.
I find the addition to for-loop as useful as we already have a quite
complex try-except-else-finally clause. I don't know why for-loops
couldn't benefit from this as well.
Best,
Sven
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
