[Python-ideas] More classical for-loop
toddrjen at gmail.com
Sat Feb 18 03:19:21 EST 2017
On Feb 18, 2017 02:30, "Mikhail V" <mikhailwas at gmail.com> wrote:
On 18 February 2017 at 04:13, Joao S. O. Bueno <jsbueno at python.org.br>
> I don't see the point in continuing this thread.
How does this add to the syntax discussion?
I was replying to Nicks quite vague comments
which were supposed to be critics.
There is no point discussing an idea on this mailing list if there is no
chance it is going to be implemented. You can talk about it on the general
list, as has been suggested to you before. But once an idea has been
largely rejected, as this one has, this mailing list is no longer the right
place for it.
>> "burden to learn" - I hope you are not serious :)
> No, this is serious.
> You duplicate the syntax possibilities of one ot he
> most basics syntactic elements
How do you count duplicate? And what is the sense
to speak about 'burden to learn' before the new syntax get
approved? If it will be the new syntax, then
you will need to learn the new syntax only.
The existing syntax will not be removed. It would break all python code
ever written in the most fundamental way. That is never going to happen.
You want throw iterables in it, do it:
for e over Sequence :
I see this probably could have some ambiguity problems
but is it such an unsolvable problem?
For integers write e.g. like this:
for i over 0, N :
for i over *N :
What is the problem?
So anyone learning python would need to know both syntaxes to be able to
work with other peoples' code. But we would end up with two syntaxes that
do exactly the same thing except with either an integer or two or three
integers separated by commas, in which case they behave completely
differently. That will be confusing even to experienced developers.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-ideas