Hi Brice,
On 04/03/17 08:45, Brice PARENT wrote:
* Creating a real object at runtime for each loop which needs to be
the target of a non-inner break or continue
However, I'm not sure the object should be constructed and fed for every
loop usage. It should probably only be instanciated if expl
On 03/03/17 19:02, Alexandre Brault wrote:
I believe what Matthias is hoping for is an equivalent of Java's named
break feature. Breaking out of an outer loop implicitly breaks out of
all inner loops
Yes, and although I think making this a runtime object is an interesting
thought (in terms of
On 2017-03-03 01:52 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Matthias Bussonnier
> wrote:
>> Thanks, I think it does make sens, I'm going to guess,
>> outerloop.brk(inners=True) might also be helpful if you have more
>> inners loops. I think that implicitely breaking inner ones
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Matthias Bussonnier
wrote:
>> *scratches head* How do you break an outer loop without breaking the
>> inner loop? What happens?
>
> Finish running the inner, then breaking the outer. Instead of breaking
> inner and outer.
>
> for i in outer:
> bk = False
> f
> *scratches head* How do you break an outer loop without breaking the
> inner loop? What happens?
Finish running the inner, then breaking the outer. Instead of breaking
inner and outer.
for i in outer:
bk = False
for j in inner:
if cond:
bk = True
if bk:
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Matthias Bussonnier
wrote:
> Thanks, I think it does make sens, I'm going to guess,
> outerloop.brk(inners=True) might also be helpful if you have more
> inners loops. I think that implicitely breaking inner ones might
> not always be the right thing to do so having
Hi Brice,
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Brice PARENT wrote:
> Thanks Matthias for taking the time to give your opinion about it.
>
> Just to set the focus where I may have failed to point it:
> the main purpose of this proposal is the creation of the object itself, an
> object representing the
Thanks Matthias for taking the time to give your opinion about it.
Just to set the focus where I may have failed to point it:
the main purpose of this proposal is the creation of the object itself,
an object representing the loop. What we can do with it is still a
sub-level of this proposal, as
On 03/03/2017 01:14 AM, Brice PARENT wrote:
Sorry for the very long message, I hope it will get your interest. And I also
hope my English was clear enough.
Long messages that explain the idea are welcome!
I think it looks interesting.
--
~Ethan~
__
On 03/03/2017 08:21 AM, Matthias Bussonnier wrote:
##
# forloop.break(), to break out of nested loops (or explicitly out of
current
#loop) - a little like pep-3136's first proposal
has_dog_named_rex = False
for owner in owners:
for dog in dog
Thanks for the idea and prior research.
I'm not convinced that this warrants new syntax. Most of what you propose
(skipping, counting, exposing a length if available, tracking if completed)
could be solved already by creating your own wrapper around an iterable:
elements_loop = ForLoopIterationO
Hi Brice,
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:14 AM, Brice PARENT wrote:
>
> A word about compatibility and understandability before:
> "as" is already a keyword, so it is already reserved and easy to parse. It
> couldn't be taken for its other uses (context managers, import statements
> and
> exceptions)
12 matches
Mail list logo
