for / while else doesn't make sense

Michael Selik michael.selik at gmail.com
Mon Jun 13 19:45:48 EDT 2016


On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 10:16 PM Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info>
wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 04:44 am, Michael Selik wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 6:11 AM Steven D'Aprano <
> > steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info> wrote:
> >
> >> - run the for block
> >> - THEN unconditionally run the "else" block
> >>
> >
> > Saying "unconditionally" is a bit misleading here. As you say, it's
> > conditioned on completing the loop without break/return/raise.
>
> It's also conditional on the OS not killing the Python process, conditional
> on the CPU not catching fire, conditional on the user not turning the power
> of, and conditional on the sun not exploding and disintegrating the entire
> earth.
>
> In the absence of any event which interferes with the normal execution of
> code by the Python VM, and in the absence of one of a very few
> explicit "JUMP" statements which explicitly jump out of the compound
> for...else statement, the else clause is unconditionally executed after the
> for clause.
>
> Happy now?
>

I think most folks assume that their program will not run as expected if
the sun explodes.

Saying that ``raise``, ``break``, and ``return`` are "one of a very few
explicit JUMP statements" implies that they are obscure. Listing them in
addition to the sun exploding suggests that you think they are similarly
unlikely and should be ignored as too bizarre to consider.

In contrast, I think raise, break, and return are quite common. Further, I
think you do too, despite what you are trying to imply. Maybe I read the
tone wrong. It's tough sometimes to hear someone's tone of voice in email.


More information about the Python-list mailing list