Why not allow empty code blocks?

[Rustom Mody]

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 5:53:12 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Rustom Mody  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')

Heh Cute! Thanks!!

> 0
> 1
> 2
> 3
> 4
> 5
> 6
> 7
> 8
> 9
> >>>
> 
> Beat that, print statement.

What makes you think I wanted to print those numbers??
Maybe I wanted a list of 10 None-s??

Point being that when one mixes up 2 things like that its anybody’s guess
which is the primary (central) effect and which the ‘side’ effect