1.5.2 for: else:
wtanksle at dolphin.openprojects.net
Sun Aug 1 02:13:47 CEST 1999
On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 01:15:54 -0400, Tim Peters wrote:
>> Oh, and if you REALLY like the current behavior of else-loop, you can
>> still have it if else-loop were gone -- like this:
>> for x in list:
>> if iffers(x): raise "no!"
>> except "no!": pass
>> That's two extra lines, and one level of nesting -- for the _exact_ same
>> functionality, only much more likely to be comprehended.
>Except that when I see that loop, I'm at a loss to guess whether the
>"except" clause is intended to catch otherwise-uncaught "no!" exceptions
>raised by list.__getitem__, iffers(), and yadda() too. Presumably the
>intent is that it should not, but there's no easy way to stop it from
>catching unintended stuff too short of defining a unique exception for each
>loop. for+break+else doesn't have this problem.
Very good point, Tim.
The best solution of all is to simply not use features of the language
which I find objectionable for whatever reason. I'm just disappointed in
the odd definition of for-else. I'm glad to have learned it this way
rather than by painful debugging, and I don't think any of us are likely
to forget now :).
Memo to self -- don't use for-else, it doesn't do what it looks like it's
-William "Billy" Tanksley
More information about the Python-list