Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #94041
| Date | 2015-07-18 09:31 +1000 |
|---|---|
| From | Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au> |
| Subject | Re: Proposed keyword to transfer control to another function |
| References | <CAPTjJmqOE2XmfFFa0NZCwuwPbM0=11ii7+GnZaAp9J1=qCeOaQ@mail.gmail.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.668.1437177558.3674.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
On 17Jul2015 20:43, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote: >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! +1 Cheers, Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au> A pessimist is an optimist in full possession of the facts.
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Proposed keyword to transfer control to another function Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au> - 2015-07-18 09:31 +1000
csiph-web