Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #94001
| References | <CAPTjJmq7_sG+HmMCBPWq2A3GQFPix-OjUTCu+yAmWiJmEFy6PA@mail.gmail.com> <55A8AC13.8070803@rece.vub.ac.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-17 20:43 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: Proposed keyword to transfer control to another function |
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.638.1437129838.3674.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote: > On 07/17/2015 01:46 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: >> Open for bikeshedding: What should the keyword be? We can't use >> "exec", which would match Unix and shell usage, because it's already >> used in a rather different sense in Python. Current candidates: >> "transfer", "goto", "recurse", and anything else you suggest. > > I propose the combination "return from". I think it is similar enough > with "yield from" to justify this and it also won't need an extra > keyword, so no programs will be broken because they used "transfer", > "goto" or whatever other new keyword as an identifier. > Oooh I like this. The parallel makes sense, and as you say, no new keyword. Yes, "return from" is my new preferred command! ChrisA
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Proposed keyword to transfer control to another function Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 20:43 +1000
csiph-web