Concrete Proposal: while ... and while ...

[Chad Netzer]

Phil Hunt wrote:

> IMO allowing ``while:'', meaning ``while 1:'' is a reasonable shortcut.

  I think "while:"  is too terse, and could be confusing;  I'd rather the
language predefine something like the following;

True = (0==0)   # Create a `True' boolean object
False = (0==1)  # Create a `False' boolean object


and then everyone could easily say,  "while True:"

This looks a lot nicer then "while 1:" and is not confusing (IMO).  Of
course, you can already do this, and in fact, I often do.  So, should these
two objects be predefined in a future Python?  In general, I'd rather keep
terseness out of Python (without being needlessly verbose, of course).

I agree that "and while" suffers from the indentedness problem; however
I'd rather have it at the indentation of the matching while, then a level in
where it might be construed as a new loop.

Chad Netzer