3 ms·

I'm not sure why the consistent way looks ridiculous. do: body() body() while x < 10 It's just a compound statement consumes the trail

by ben509 7y ago

I'm not sure why the consistent way looks ridiculous. do: body() body() while x < 10 It's just a compound statement consumes the trailing while clause. Decorators already precede a function (or class) definition[2], and one alternative for the ill-fated switch statement[1] was to have switch precede the case blocks to avoid excessive indentation. So there's plenty of precedent in the other direction. [1]: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3103/#alternative-3 https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3103/#alternative-3 [2]: https://docs.python.org/3/reference/grammar.html https://docs.python.org/3/reference/grammar.html

toxik 7y ago
I think you're really stretching it when you say "there's plenty of precedent," arguably there is none as the decorator syntax is pre-clause and thus poses no indentation reading issues. So too for the proposed switch statement syntax. Then there is the fact that the decorator syntax is perhaps the most alien of all Python syntax, sometimes criticized for being Perlesque, perish the thought (on account of it being introduced by creative interpretation of a single special character though, so perhaps unrelated.) My main gripe is the indentation. Your code reads as if the while condition is tested after the loop finishes. What if the while statement was part of the loop and could be placed arbitrarily? do: body1() body2() while x < 10 body3() IOW `do:` translates to `while True:` and `while x` to `if not x: break`. Addendum: I would also entertain forcing the `while` to be at the end of the loop -- as I'm not sure what this would do do: if foo(): while x < 10
- ben509 7y ago
  I think it's precedent because it's just a line after a block instead of before it. It certainly is a break from Python's "big outline" look. > What if the while statement was part of the loop and could be placed arbitrarily? If you're open to that, I had thought this was a bridge too far, but: do: body1() break if some_condition body2() continue if some_other_condition Under that scheme, the semantics translate to: while True: do_body break And, of course, the `break if` and `continue if` syntax would be general.

by ben509 7y ago

toxik 7y ago

I think you're really stretching it when you say "there's plenty of precedent," arguably there is none as the decorator syntax is pre-clause and thus poses no indentation reading issues. So too for the proposed switch statement syntax. Then there is the fact that the decorator syntax is perhaps the most alien of all Python syntax, sometimes criticized for being Perlesque, perish the thought (on account of it being introduced by creative interpretation of a single special character though, so perhaps unrelated.) My main gripe is the indentation. Your code reads as if the while condition is tested after the loop finishes. What if the while statement was part of the loop and could be placed arbitrarily? do: body1() body2() while x < 10 body3() IOW `do:` translates to `while True:` and `while x` to `if not x: break`. Addendum: I would also entertain forcing the `while` to be at the end of the loop -- as I'm not sure what this would do do: if foo(): while x < 10

ben509 7y ago
I think it's precedent because it's just a line after a block instead of before it. It certainly is a break from Python's "big outline" look. > What if the while statement was part of the loop and could be placed arbitrarily? If you're open to that, I had thought this was a bridge too far, but: do: body1() break if some_condition body2() continue if some_other_condition Under that scheme, the semantics translate to: while True: do_body break And, of course, the `break if` and `continue if` syntax would be general.