On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 04:47, Paul Sokolovsky <pmiscml@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,

On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 17:48:35 -0700
Christopher Barker <pythonchb@gmail.com> wrote:

> how about:
>
> for something in some_iterable:
>     some_stuff_with_maybe_a_break
> else if not break:
>     something_more
>
> No new keywords :-)
>
> or:
>
> for something in some_iterable:
>     some_stuff_with_maybe_a_break
> else:  # if not break:
>     something_more

This is the most genius solution posted to this thread.

And if the thread didn't die after van Rossum's post, I don't cheer
hopes it would die now, but let me sprinkle in another "fresh"
thought. First let me remind how this thread started:

> ELSE-clause in FOR and WHILE has unclear syntax. I suggest new clause
> instead   

Then various people started to throw in variants of even more unclear
and confusing syntax (like "if" after "for"), with some percentage of
those people demonstrating not understanding how the original "else"
works.

But consider following idea: if it's confusing, DO NOT USE it. You
don't hear that often, but: treat Python as a generic programming
language, not as a bag of tricks. The fact that most other languages
don't have extra clause after "for" is enough of a reason to not use it
in Python either.

The problem isn't that it is unclear, the problem is that it is misunderstood. If it was unclear what `for...else` means/does then yes, do-not-use would fix the problem. The fact that it can and is misunderstood as doing something else means that people have to learn to not use something that feels like it should be usable.

So why it exists at all then? It's there for people who don't find it
confusing, for very responsible use. As a random example, after
studying 2 (bytecode) Python compilers and having written my own (so I
know what code is generated from for-else), I no longer find it
confusing. I actually found 2 intuitive ways to use that construct, in
the very compiler mentioned - after all, if you eyeball a Python
compiler, you either know, or ready to learn, how all language
constructs work.

For anything else - clear ban. Everyone should consider that too. (But
please leave the language syntax alone (backwards compatibility, etc.),
at least that's a suggestion which comes out from van Rossum's post).


Frankly, saying that a part of a language that is frequently misunderstood, is never allowed to be improved is disappointing when the suggestion that it can be (somehow) has been so well received by everyone else.
 

> As for the "loop didn't run at all" case: Does anyone find a need for
> that? Personally, I've found that everytime I do some kind of check
> for an empty iterable before a loop, it was totally unnecessary.

I find the need for that regularly. And I use the obvious syntax which
everyone else uses:

if not seq:
    print("This page is intentionally left blank")
else:
    for i in seq:
        ...

Any adhoc, confusing syntax someone may imagine to add, would go to the
same "DO NOT USE" category. So, I pray to van Rossum's answer that
something like that will never be added to the language. (Which is
hard to hang hopes on, given all the mess added recently.) 

Many people offering approaches is not muddling the thread. Clearly, most people here agree that `for...else` is confusing/unintuitive on it's own, and could be improved (not removed, but improved). The discussion was trying to find an improvement that people agree on as well. The reason there are so many offerings, is probably because everyone has had a similar thought about it in the past.
 

Notice:
This email is confidential and may contain copyright material of members of the Ocado Group. Opinions and views expressed in this message may not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of the members of the Ocado Group.

If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately and delete all copies of this message. Please note that it is your responsibility to scan this message for viruses.

References to the "Ocado Group" are to Ocado Group plc (registered in England and Wales with number 7098618) and its subsidiary undertakings (as that expression is defined in the Companies Act 2006) from time to time. The registered office of Ocado Group plc is Buildings One & Two, Trident Place, Mosquito Way, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9UL.