Why not allow empty code blocks?

[Chris Angelico]

On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > - Poorer error catching: What was a straight syntax error is now a lint-catch (at best)
>> >   [print (x) for x in range(20)]
>>
>> Huh? Aside from the fact that you're constructing a useless list of
>> Nones, what's the error?
>
> Huh²
>
> Are you seriously suggesting that python-3’s behavior below is better IN
> THIS INSTANCE than python-2’s?
>
> [That there may be other reasons that outweigh this one for print-as-function
> is not something I am disputing. I was solely disputing your ‘just’]
>
> Python 2.7.12 (default, Jul  1 2016, 15:12:24)
>>>> [print(x) for x in range(10)]
>   File "<stdin>", line 1
>     [print(x) for x in range(10)]
>          ^
> SyntaxError: invalid syntax
>>>>
>
> Python 3.5.2 (default, Jul  5 2016, 12:43:10)
>
>>>> [print(x) for x in range(10)]
> 0
> 1
> 2
> 3
> 4
> 5
> 6
> 7
> 8
> 9
> [None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None, None]
>>>>

I still don't understand your complaint. How is this "better/worse
error checking"? All you're showing me is the same line of code you
showed above, plus what it does in Py2 and Py3, which I know already.
You haven't explained why this is such a great feature in Py2 that got
lost in Py3.

And hey. If you want to print out the numbers 0 through 9, Py3 offers
a pretty concise way to spell that:

>>> print(*range(10), sep='\n')
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
>>>

Beat that, print statement.

ChrisA