On 2018-04-19 23:52, Chris Angelico wrote:
And are limited to conditions that check the truthiness/falsiness of the value you care about. So that works for re.match, but not for anything that might return -1 (a lot of C APIs do that, so if you're working with a thin wrapper, that might be all you get), and it'll encourage people to use this form when "is not None" would be more appropriate (setting up for a failure if ever the API returned a
From the previously discussed code, it might look like this: while (file.get_next_token() as token) != -1: doc += token Shouldn't be needed often, but I find it readable enough. More generally, I've been -0 on this idea because I've come to appreciate Python's less-clever i.e. "dumb" loop syntax, and ":=" combined with assignment-expressions doesn't feel like Python at all but rather Pascal and C had a love-child, haha. I could mildly support the "as" syntax however, since it is so darn readable and has analogues in other places. That leaves what to do with "with". Guess I missed the part in the discussion where we couldn't fit the syntax into it. Would requiring parens here not work? with (expr() as name) as conman: pass This should rarely be necessary or useful, correct? Perhaps disallow for now. On assignment to names/subscripts, just names sounds simpler for the first round. Also the current "while" itself could be a bit simpler by making the expression optional and slightly less verbose: while: points = learner.get(static_hint) if not points: break Thanks for the hard work, -Mike