Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:77354 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 46756 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2014 23:15:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 19 Sep 2014 23:15:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ajf@ajf.me; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ajf@ajf.me; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.216 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ajf@ajf.me X-Host-Fingerprint: 192.64.116.216 imap10-3.ox.privateemail.com Received: from [192.64.116.216] ([192.64.116.216:54665] helo=imap10-3.ox.privateemail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id CA/55-13213-CF8BC145 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 19:15:13 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B46D12400C7; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 19:15:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at imap10.ox.privateemail.com Received: from mail.privateemail.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (imap10.ox.privateemail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id hRrNKJ7kD6vT; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 19:15:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oa-res-27-90.wireless.abdn.ac.uk (oa-res-27-90.wireless.abdn.ac.uk [137.50.27.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 80F672400C2; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 19:15:04 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 00:15:01 +0100 Cc: internals@lists.php.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: To: Leigh X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Loop... or... From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) On 20 Sep 2014, at 00:10, Leigh wrote: > I understand the desire for something python-like, however it > certainly doesn't fall under the "or" keyword. Why not? Python uses =93else=94, and before creating this RFC you = initially wanted to use =93else=94. > If anything we could > probably get away with it under "and", or introduce a new keyword of > "then", but really, that is a subject for a different thread > altogether. This thread is about the "loop not entered" syntax. Lets > stick to that for now, and I'm more than happy to create a thread for > the other scenario later on, and we can discuss the python style there > instead. I=92m bringing it up because I think we=92re only going to end up with = one feature or the other, and I think Python=92s behaviour is more = useful. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/