On 21/07/2020 22:07, Barry wrote:
I'm sorry, of the above two points I don't understand 1. at all, and
I only half understand 2. Please could you rephrase more clearly
for an idiot like me.:-)
This is a continuation of my previous post to
Python's FOR ... ELSE ... , Raymond Hettinger has
told us, has origins in some ideas of Don Knuth.
That’s news to me (both that it’s due to
Knuth and that Raymond said so). I invented it without
awareness of prior art, by reasoning about the
similarity between IF and WHILE (FOR followed from
On 20/07/2020 15:42, Guido van
Also, let me be clear that this feature
will never be added to the language.
With respect, that seems pretty dogmatic, given that
for...else is one of the most confusing features of Python.
What would be so terrible about allowing, at minimum, `if not
break:' as a synonym for 'else:'?
1. Because that not what else mean today. Its elif never
2. Because if after for is confusing. I can get behind elif
as after for it pull work.
But as to `if` after `for` being confusing, are you seriously saying
that `else` after `for` is *less* confusing?