At 09:55 AM 5/18/2005 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: >[Phillip J. Eby] > > And there was much rejoicing in the land of the co-routiney > people. :) +1000. > > > > Should this maybe just be added to PEP 342? To me, PEP 342 has always > > seemed incomplete without ways to throw() and close(), but that could > > easily be just me. In any case I'd expect the implementation of > > 'next(arg)' to have some overlap with the implementation of 'throw()'. > >Maybe, but on the other hand this idea can be done independently from >PEP 342. After the "monster-PEP" 340, I'd rather break proposals up in >small parts.
Okay. Maybe we should just update PEP 325, then? It has much of the stuff that we'd want in the new PEP, such as the rationale. Your new proposal, AFAICT, is just a simple extension of the PEP 325 protocol (i.e., adding 'throw()'), along with some decisions to resolve its open issues. Even the addition of 'throw()' seems tacitly approved by this bit at the end: """Were PEP 288 implemented, Exceptions Semantics for close could be layered on top of it""" So at this point it seems your proposal is just nailing down specifics for the open parts of PEP 325. _______________________________________________ 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
