But in `for...else` the `else` call isn't always called, so changing `else`
for `finally` doesn't make sense. What you're suggesting is replacing `else`
with `on_finish` and adding `finally` and `on_break`.
I agree that having `finally` could make the use cases of `else` clearer,
but I am not conv
Can I suggest that for loops the `else` would be a lot clearer if it was spelt
`finally` as was done for PEP-0341 for try blocks and that we might possibly
need one or more `on_…` clauses such as `on_break` and `on_finish` I think that
this would be a lot clearer:
for i in range(N):
if i >
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020, at 21:24, Chris Angelico wrote:
> I actively oppose it because it isn't possible. Anything that is safe
> will not have all of pickle's functionality. A nerfed version of
> pickle that can only unpickle a tiny handful of core data types is no
> better than other options that a
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:00 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:55:03AM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> > At that point, you are NOT running it with the "exact same access
> > permissions", are you? :)
>
> Indeed, and I did acknowledge that you were probably thinking about
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:55:03AM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> At that point, you are NOT running it with the "exact same access
> permissions", are you? :)
Indeed, and I did acknowledge that you were probably thinking about a
different scenario. But I was challenging your assertion that anyo
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 9:46 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 09:56:45PM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> > A pickle file (or equivalent blob in a database, or whatever) should
> > be considered equally as trusted as your source code. If you're
> > writing out a file that has
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 09:56:45PM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> A pickle file (or equivalent blob in a database, or whatever) should
> be considered equally as trusted as your source code. If you're
> writing out a file that has the exact same access permissions as your
> own source code, and th
On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 12:38, Dominik Vilsmeier
wrote:
> On 14.07.20 09:54, Mathew Elman wrote:
>
> What about adding `except` to the compound loop statement?
> That way in cases where there needs to be clarity you can raise a specific
> exception rather than just `break`.
> Keeping the logic of
> On 13 Jul 2020, at 18:56, Paul Moore wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 at 18:42, Barry Scott wrote:
>
>> On 13 Jul 2020, at 05:55, Christopher Barker wrote:
>>
>> well, sure, though I have to say that I think that that's an unfortunate
>> confusing thing about python dicts. IN fact, I doub
On 14.07.20 09:54, Mathew Elman wrote:
What about adding `except` to the compound loop statement?
That way in cases where there needs to be clarity you can raise a
specific exception rather than just `break`.
Keeping the logic of why you "break" the loop inside the loop and
would also allow mult
What about adding `except` to the compound loop statement?
That way in cases where there needs to be clarity you can raise a specific
exception rather than just `break`.
Keeping the logic of why you "break" the loop inside the loop and would
also allow multiple reasons for breaking from a for loop
11 matches
Mail list logo
