pre-PEP for optional 'pass'

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 02:50:56 GMT, Terry Reedy <tejarex at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" <philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:slrnabp9cs.ipr.philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk...
>> >Thanks for proposing this. I'm sure you'll get lots of horrified
>> >reactions
>>
>> I don't see why: people who like pass can still use it.
>
>I am not horrified, however, I do have two objections:
>
>1. We will have two styles of Python to read: with and without pass.
>I expect this would be confusing, especially since one would not know
>for sure until one sees a pass.

I don't see that as a serious problem. We already have as many 
styles of python as there are python programmers. For example, I 
have never used lambda. As another example, some people prefer short
variable names nad others long ones, t versus totalCount. Etc.

>2. Newcomers will wonder why we have it if it is not required.  Then
>they will wonder "should I use it or not" and post requests for
>advice.

Do we get newbies posting asking which is better of:

   if some_condition:
      do_something()

or:

   if some_condition: do_something()

If not, why would they ask for pass?

>It would have been ok with me, I think, if the language had allowed
>null suites from the beginning, but it is now to late, practically
>speaking, to remove pass.

That's true, but I AM NOT PROPOSING TO REMOVE IT.


-- 
<"><"><"> 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