On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 9:30:54 PM UTC+5:30, Ian wrote:
> In my experience the sorts of people who preach "one exit point" are
> also all about defining preconditions and postconditions and proving
> that the postconditions follow from the preconditions. I think that
> the two are linked, becau
Ian,
Regarding your first message breaks are anathema (for many) and your other
alternative is complicated.
Regarding your second post, anding of lists is allowed, but generally returns
non-utile results, but point taken.
I guess technically it could be the last statement, with the condition
> Syntax:
> fwhile X in ListY and conditionZ:
There is precedent in Algol 68:
for i from 0 to n while safe(i) do .. od
which would also make a python proposal that needs no new key words:
for i in range(n) while safe(i): ..
The benefit of the syntax would be to concentrate the co
Your syntax makes great sense. Avoiding new keywords is obviously preferable.
-Original Message-
From: Fábio Santos
To: jimjhb
Cc: python-list
Sent: Mon, Jun 24, 2013 4:34 pm
Subject: Re: Is this PEP-able? fwhile
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 8:52 PM, wrote:
> Syntax:
>
> fw
a practice (don't
use breaks) to the wrong
circumstance (the python 'for' is not like other fors in other languages).
-Jim
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Landau
To: jimjhb
Cc: python-list
Sent: Mon, Jun 24, 2013 4:41 pm
Subject: Re: Is this PEP-able? fwhile
On 24
Syntax:
fwhile X in ListY and conditionZ:
The following would actually exactly as: for X in ListY:
fwhile X in ListY and True:
fwhile would act much like 'for', but would stop if the condition after the
'and' is no longer True.
The motivation is to be able to make use of all the great
