pre-PEP for optional 'pass'

[phil hunt]

OK, I've decided to write a PEP. Preliminary to this, I'd like 
people's comments.

I wish to make the pas startement optional. That is, in any Python 
program where there is a pass it can be left out and the meaning of 
the program is unchanged.

There are two rationales for this: convenience and beauty.


(1) Convenience

I would like to be able to write as code classes and functions 
without implementing the body to start with, e.g.:


class MyClass:
   def __init__(self, x, ,y, z):
   def getTwiddle(self):
   def setTwiddle(self, twiddle):


At the moment if I want to do this I have to put pass in and then 
take them out again. A minor inconvenience, to be sure, but one that 
niggles slightly due to the highly exploratory style of coding I 
often use.


(2) Beauty

In my opinion this change is Pythonic.

Consider the following code:

if condition:
   statement1()
   statement2()                                                                             
   statement3()                                                                             
else:
   statement4()                                                                             
   statement5()                                                                             
   statement6()                                                                             


If I remove the statement1() line, the program will still execute, 
and will behave as before except that staement1() is not executed. 
This is true if I then remeove the statement2() line. So the rule 
appears to be: if you have a block of n statements, you can remove 
one of them and the program behaves as before except not executing 
the one removed.

But if I then remove statement3() it is suddenly a syntax error.  
So blocks 1 statement long currently behave differently to blocks >1
statement long. I propose that this irregularity be removed.

In python, you can say:

   x = [ ]

specifying an empty list in the obvious way. You don't have to say

   x = [ empty ]

or:

   x = [ pass ]


or anything like that. I propose to bring groups of staements in 
line with that principle.


Thoughts?


-- 
<"><"><"> Philip Hunt <philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk> <"><"><">
"I would guess that he really believes whatever is politically 
advantageous for him to believe." 
                        -- Alison Brooks, referring to Michael
                              Portillo, on soc.history.what-if