On 20 Jul 2020, at 09:56, Alex Hall <alex.mojaki@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:36 AM Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas <python-ideas@python.org> wrote:
May I repeat:  Spelling 'if break:' and 'if not break:' rather than say
'on_break:' etc. would avoid adding new keywords.

I don't know what to do about the zero iterations case, though.

It could be that if `break` appears somewhere that an expression is expected, it becomes an expression with the value 0 or 1 (or False or True) to indicate the number of breaks that happened in the previous loop, and similarly some other bit of code involving keywords can become the number of iterations of the previous loop. This could be represented by `for`, `len(for)`, `pass`, etc. So one might write:

for x in ...:
if not pass:
elif pass == 1:

To avoid the ambiguity of if after for why not follow for with elif?

for x in ...:

elif break:
# break was called
elif not break:
# looped at least once and break not used
elif pass:
# same as else today
# loop'ed no times

(I always have to think what else means after a for).


Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-leave@python.org
Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/N65ZZJPLN6LBPQOURDKJNXWGT64T3ZZK/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/