On 23/07/2016 14:54, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 16:13:58 +0300
Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> wrote:
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <da...@vex.net>:
It's ambiguous to the reader what was actually meant. Forcing a
"pass" there shows the reader that the empty block was not a
mistake.
Just let the syntax speak for itself. The code means what the language
definition says it means.
Exactly so given this...
for x in sequence:
print("Something")
If the language allowed that then we know exactly what the programmer
said. What we don't know is what the programmer meant. The above is a
simple and obvious statement but real code is more complicated. Add a
few comments and a little nesting and what used to be obvious isn't.
The interpreter would still know what the programmer said but without
the pass requirement it is easier for it to be not what he meant.
Python has some nice features like this one that protect the programmer
and allow much faster development because there is a safety net. If
you like knives without handles you know where to find Perl.
pass can only do so much. If doesn't help here:
for x in sequence:
print("Something")
print("Something else")
Was the second print meant to be indented as well or not?
Perhaps rather than 'pass', the language ought to have provided an
optional 'end' keyword to mark the end of a block. Then there would be
less speculation about what was meant:
for x in sequence:
print("Something")
end
print("Something else")
(And no speculation at all if 'end' was mandatory. Python already
provides 'else' (and 'except'?) which can do a similar job in some
circumstances.)
--
Bartc
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
