Path: csiph.com!feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.kamp.net!newsfeed.kamp.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
From: Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: Why not allow empty code blocks?
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 22:22:57 +1000
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <mailman.46.1469881381.6033.python-list@python.org>
References: <b80ae0ca-d8b2-4430-96a1-7a6768b177ef@googlegroups.com> <5792cd34$0$1587$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <87vazwppxx.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <CAPTjJmotJBomzHRR4bY04mVFwgMWAUp_7HDhJyd2v+jHYmnGjQ@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.74.1469273692.22221.python-list@python.org> <nmvt9g$nj6$1@dont-email.me> <CAPTjJmqjaLOZLiBHG2ADrsHmOwdAsEfAHQ1vDwDpMTM+GU=zzg@mail.gmail.com> <579B1ABB.1070500@rece.vub.ac.be> <nngbk6$vce$1@ger.gmane.org> <mailman.36.1469821397.6033.python-list@python.org> <nngdns$um1$1@dont-email.me> <579c2095$0$22142$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <nnhuni$op$1@dont-email.me> <CAPTjJmq7caLKiimgEt_HbhSNcyv+c6_+8sF_odcGx6yoCUjizA@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.43.1469877947.6033.python-list@python.org> <c6df24e3-3f4f-43be-be18-bc9eaa91606b@googlegroups.com> <CAPTjJmoD-wPKL6uysEdWACV0v0W+PzBHK-w31Wr2AJfEPNtmAw@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.44.1469879353.6033.python-list@python.org> <b6d430d4-4a20-48ad-925e-1a530b54e281@googlegroups.com> <CAPTjJmp4VE-W6hHLYq8XjWETe8oOy+R93qr2iC0Qtxa40YfFig@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <b6d430d4-4a20-48ad-925e-1a530b54e281@googlegroups.com>
Precedence: list
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:112058

On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote=
:
>> > - Poorer error catching: What was a straight syntax error is now a lin=
t-catch (at best)
>> >   [print (x) for x in range(20)]
>>
>> Huh? Aside from the fact that you're constructing a useless list of
>> Nones, what's the error?
>
> Huh=C2=B2
>
> Are you seriously suggesting that python-3=E2=80=99s behavior below is be=
tter IN
> THIS INSTANCE than python-2=E2=80=99s?
>
> [That there may be other reasons that outweigh this one for print-as-func=
tion
> is not something I am disputing. I was solely disputing your =E2=80=98jus=
t=E2=80=99]
>
> Python 2.7.12 (default, Jul  1 2016, 15:12:24)
>>>> [print(x) for x in range(10)]
>   File "<stdin>", line 1
>     [print(x) for x in range(10)]
>          ^
> SyntaxError: invalid syntax
>>>>
>
> Python 3.5.2 (default, Jul  5 2016, 12:43:10)
>
>>>> [print(x) for x in range(10)]
> 0
> 1
> 2
> 3
> 4
> 5
> 6
> 7
> 8
> 9
> [None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None]
>>>>

I still don't understand your complaint. How is this "better/worse
error checking"? All you're showing me is the same line of code you
showed above, plus what it does in Py2 and Py3, which I know already.
You haven't explained why this is such a great feature in Py2 that got
lost in Py3.

And hey. If you want to print out the numbers 0 through 9, Py3 offers
a pretty concise way to spell that:

>>> print(*range(10), sep=3D'\n')
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
>>>

Beat that, print statement.

ChrisA