[Python-Dev] PEP 548: More Flexible Loop Control
R. David Murray
rdmurray at bitdance.com
Wed Sep 6 12:34:00 EDT 2017
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Wed Sep 6 12:34:00 EDT 2017
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 548: More Flexible Loop Control
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 548: More Flexible Loop Control
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Wed, 06 Sep 2017 15:05:51 +1000, Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:11 AM, R. David Murray <rdmurray at bitdance.com> wrote: > > I've written a PEP proposing a small enhancement to the Python loop > > control statements. Short version: here's what feels to me like a > > Pythonic way to spell "repeat until": > > > > while: > > <do stuff> > > break if <done condition> > > > > The PEP goes into some detail on why this feels like a readability > > improvement in the more general case, with examples taken from > > the standard library: > > > > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0548/ > > Is "break if" legal in loops that have their own conditions as well, > or only in a bare "while:" loop? For instance, is this valid? > > while not found_the_thing_we_want: > data = sock.read() > break if not data > process(data) Yes. > Or this, which uses the condition purely as a descriptor: > > while "moar socket data": > data = sock.read() > break if not data > process(data) Yes. > Also - shouldn't this be being discussed first on python-ideas? Yep, you are absolutely right. Someone has told me I also missed a related discussion on python-ideas in my searching for prior discussions. (I haven't looked for it yet...) I'll blame jet lag :) --David
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 548: More Flexible Loop Control
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 548: More Flexible Loop Control
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list