[Michael Hudson] > I think the making-generators-more-sexy thing is nice, but I'm think > that's almost orthogonal.
Not entirely. I agree that "continue EXPR" calling next(EXPR) which enables yield-expressions is entirely orthogonal. But there are already two PEPs asking for passing exceptions and/or cleanup into generators and from there it's only a small step to using them as resource allocation/release templates. The "small step" part is important -- given that we're going to do that work on generators anyway, I expect the changes to the compiler and VM to support the block statement are actually *less* than the changes needed to support thunks. No language feature is designed in isolation. > Did you read this mail: > > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-April/052970.html > > ? In this proposal, you have to go to some effort to make the thunk > survive the block, and I think if weirdness results, that's the > programmer's problem. It's not a complete proposal though. You say "And grudgingly, I guess you'd need to make returns behave like that anyway" (meaning they should return from the containing function). But you don't give a hint on how that could be made to happen, and I expect that by the time you've figured out a mechanism, thunks aren't all that simple any more. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
