Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] peps: Reject PEP 315.
R. David Murray
> - Deferred; see
> + Rejected; see
> + http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2013-June/021610.html
> +
> + This PEP has been deferred since 2006; see
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-February/060718.html
>
> Subsequent efforts to revive the PEP in April 2009 did not
> meet with success because no syntax emerged that could
> - compete with a while-True and an inner if-break.
> + compete with the following form:
>
> - A syntax was found for a basic do-while loop but it found
> - had little support because the condition was at the top:
> + while True:
> + <setup code>
> + if not <condition>:
> + break
> + <loop body>
>
> - do ... while <cond>:
> - <loop body>
> + Users of the language are advised to use that form when a do-while
> + loop would have been appropriate.
Why delete the information about what was found wanting?
--David
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Pytho...@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/dev-python%2Bgarchive-30976%40googlegroups.com
Łukasz Langa
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:39:07 +0200, lukasz.langa <python-...@python.org> wrote:- Deferred; see
+ Rejected; see
+ http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2013-June/021610.html
+
+ This PEP has been deferred since 2006; see
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-February/060718.html
Subsequent efforts to revive the PEP in April 2009 did not
meet with success because no syntax emerged that could
- compete with a while-True and an inner if-break.
+ compete with the following form:
- A syntax was found for a basic do-while loop but it found
- had little support because the condition was at the top:
+ while True:
+ <setup code>
+ if not <condition>:
+ break
+ <loop body>
- do ... while <cond>:
- <loop body>
+ Users of the language are advised to use that form when a do-while
+ loop would have been appropriate.
Why delete the information about what was found wanting?
Nick Coghlan
It was relevant because it was the most acceptable alternative found, and we *still* didn't think it was an improvement over the status quo.
We don't generally significantly edit PEPs when accepting or rejecting them.
Cheers,
Nick.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Łukasz Langa
>
> WWW: http://lukasz.langa.pl/
> Twitter: @llanga
> IRC: ambv on #python-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Pytho...@python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ncoghlan%40gmail.com
>
Łukasz Langa
On 27 Jun 2013 03:12, "Łukasz Langa" <luk...@langa.pl> wrote:
> This was a mention of an alternative possible syntax. I don't feel it was worth keeping this particular one while not discussing any other alternatives at all. If you'd rather keep this information, it would be better off to have it to an "Alternative approaches" section.It was relevant because it was the most acceptable alternative found, and we *still* didn't think it was an improvement over the status quo.
We don't generally significantly edit PEPs when accepting or rejecting them.