On Thursday 05 May 2005 16:03, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> The discussion on the meaning of break when nesting a PEP 340 block
> statement inside a for loop has given me some real reasons to prefer PEP
> 310's single pass semantics for user defined statements
That also solves a problem with resource a
On 5/5/05, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The discussion on the meaning of break when nesting a PEP 340 block statement
> inside a for loop has given me some real reasons to prefer PEP 310's single
> pass
> semantics for user defined statements (more on that at the end). The
> suggesti
The discussion on the meaning of break when nesting a PEP 340 block statement
inside a for loop has given me some real reasons to prefer PEP 310's single
pass
semantics for user defined statements (more on that at the end). The suggestion
below is my latest attempt at combining the ideas of the
