Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Python (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f43-python.html)
-   -   Re: Is this PEP-able? fwhile (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t962081-re-is-this-pep-able-fwhile.html)

Joshua Landau 06-24-2013 08:40 PM

Re: Is this PEP-able? fwhile
 
On 24 June 2013 20:52, <jimjhb@aol.com> wrote:
> Syntax:
>
> fwhile X in ListY and conditionZ:
>
> The following would actually exactly as: for X in ListY:
>
> fwhile X in ListY and True:
>
> fwhile would act much like 'for', but would stop if the condition after the
> 'and' is no longer True.
>
> The motivation is to be able to make use of all the great aspects of the
> python 'for' (no indexing or explict
> end condition check, etc.) and at the same time avoiding a 'break' from the
> 'for'.


There is one good reason not to use breaks: itertools.
I often prefer a for-over-a-properly-constrained-iterable to a
for-with-a-break, but there's no real reason to ever prefer a while.

That said, why add this to the syntax when there's already
functionality that gives you what you want? Just use
itertools.takewhile as Ian Kelly says.

> (NOTE: Many people are being taught to avoid 'break' and 'continue' at all
> costs, so they instead convert
> the clean 'for' into a less-clean 'while'. Or they just let the 'for' run
> out. You can argue against this teaching
> (at least for Python) but that doesn't mean it's not prevalent and
> prevailing.)


We shouldn't make a language around "people are taught the language
badly - let us accommodate for their bad practices!"

> [People who avoid the 'break' by functionalizing an inner portion of the
> loop are just kidding themselves and making
> their own code worse, IMO.]
>
> I'm not super familiar with CPython, but I'm pretty sure I could get this up
> and working without too much effort.
> The mandatory 'and' makes sense because 'or' would hold the end value valid
> (weird) and not accomplish much.
> The condition itself could of course have multiple parts to it, including
> 'or's.
>
> It's possible the name 'fwhile' is not optimal, but that shouldn't affect
> the overall merit/non-merit of the concept.


"Possible"? It's more than just possible, *wink*.

> Comments and Questions welcome.



All times are GMT. The time now is 09:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.