[Python-ideas] if in for-loop statement

[Sven R. Kunze]

Hi Henk-Jaap,

thanks for your "if in for" proposal.

Paul's comments are all "motherhood statements" against a generic 
proposal. It's nothing that would prevent your specific proposal from 
being accepted or not. And there's no rejected PEP for this feature as 
far as I can see.

Skimming through the other thread about this topic, I remember me not 
being very offensive against it. I would use it often.

IIRC, one result of former discussions were that it would be technically 
possible. But the other proposer did not convince most thread 
participants back then. I for one, though, didn't buy the 
counter-arguments and still don't. They still sound to me like abstract 
fears.


On 23.02.2017 16:18, Henk-Jaap Wagenaar wrote:
> I did find https://docs.python.org/devguide/langchanges.html and 
> http://www.curiousefficiency.org/posts/2011/02/justifying-python-language-changes.html 
> but the things you wrote would be useful to add the former (or be 
> linked from there). It would also be good if there was a counter-point 
> to that blog post of changes (like this one) that are not sufficiently 
> thought through or significant enough to be accepted: it is always 
> good to have examples on both sides.
>
> In terms of your "it keeps coming up", maybe there should be a general 
> PEP (or something else) that simply outlines a bunch of ideas (and 
> will be kept adding to) that keep cropping up but have been 
> rejected/received unsympathetically many times? Including maybe links 
> to these threads?

Recently, we had a similar discussion about writing an "official" 
document which might prevent proposal such as yours. I wasn't the only 
one being offended by this kind of thinking. There are, as you noted, 
two sides of the table and just because "it keeps coming up" and "was 
received unsympathetically many times" doesn't mean we shouldn't 
consider it. Point is, it actually seems sympathetic to many people and 
this is why it keeps coming up.


Nevertheless, a proposal needs consensus.

Regards,
Sven