from future import pass_function

Michael Hrivnak mhrivnak at
Thu Jul 26 07:20:57 CEST 2012

If we want pass(), then why not break() and continue()?  And also
def() and class()?  for(), while(), if(), with(), we can make them all
callable objects!

Except that they are control statements.  They are not objects, they
have no type, and they can never be evaluated in an expression.  And
most importantly, there is no value to be gained by making them

It is valuable for a language to have control statements, as others
have already explained.  This is an interesting exercise to think
about what their nature is, but at the end of the day, embrace them
for what they are.


On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Ulrich Eckhardt
<ulrich.eckhardt at> wrote:
> Hi!
> I just had an idea, it occurred to me that the pass statement is pretty
> similar to the print statement, and similarly to the print() function, there
> could be a pass() function that does and returns nothing.
> Example:
>    def pass():
>        return
>    try:
>        do_something()
>    except:
>        pass()
> One thing I don't like about this is the syntax
>    class foo(object):
>        pass()
> What do you think?
> Uli
> --

More information about the Python-list mailing list