pre-PEP for optional 'pass'

[Erik Max Francis]

Joe Mason wrote:

> A warning might suffice.  If the problem is mainly writing code that
> will be
> filled in later, ignoring the warning should be fine during
> development,
> and when you're ready to release it will remind you of any you haven't
> implemented yet.

But then we've come full circle.  If it generates a warning, then there
must be a way to suppress the warning (i.e., tell the interpreter that
that's what you really meant and it's not a mistake).  The obvious
mechanism would be a keyword that means "don't do anything," and an
obvious choice for that keyword is pass.

Bam, we're right back where we started.

Removing pass seems like a terribly unuseful idea.

-- 
 Erik Max Francis / max at alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
 __ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/  \ Nationalism is an infantile sickness.
\__/ Albert Einstein
    Alcyone Systems' Daily Planet / http://www.alcyone.com/planet.html
 A new, virtual planet, every day.