On: The optional “else” in Python loops

[wting]

Raymond Hettinger has suggested that instead of `else:` the keyword should have been called `nobreak:` which conveys intentions better.

[avn2109 → wting]

What about using "finally," which if IIRC is already a thing in Python and encapsulates this idea pretty neatly?

[dbarlett → avn2109]

finally blocks are always executed; this kind of else block is only executed if the for block exited normally (i.e. did not throw an exception).

[aperture → dbarlett]

How about a keyword such as "after"? I feel like that could have extensible potential in other areas of the language, and the name makes a little sense logically speaking.

[gingerrr → aperture]

or something like "then"?

[BerislavLopac → wting]

Or "unbroken", even... ;-)