Re: Is this PEP-able? fwhile

References	<8D03F2B8CF0E7BE-1864-1796B@webmail-m103.sysops.aol.com> <CAA=1kxR65wqgQWQJaLvP2yx_XacEMsHiFs40rPW1UbFXYpnytA@mail.gmail.com> <CALwzidnADsCdNmfFsLChVq7bt9G87Rsr1DsD1M-jNmzqQ2Z0eA@mail.gmail.com>
Date	2013-06-24 23:41 +0100
Subject	Re: Is this PEP-able? fwhile
From	Fábio Santos <fabiosantosart@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.3777.1372113670.3114.python-list@python.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On 24 Jun 2013 22:29, "Ian Kelly" <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Fábio Santos <fabiosantosart@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > This can probably be best achieved by adding to the existing for loop,
> > so maybe taking advantage of the existing for...if syntax and adding
> > for...while would be a better idea?
>
> The for...if syntax only exists for comprehensions and generators.  If
> we're going to add for...while for loops, then we might as well go
> ahead and add for...if loops there as well.
>
> That said, I do like this syntax better than "fwhile".

Good point. Still, I don't see why for..if doesn't exist in for loops
anyway. It may be lack of foresight, but I don't understand why at all.

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Is this PEP-able? fwhile Fábio Santos <fabiosantosart@gmail.com> - 2013-06-24 23:41 +0100

csiph-web