On 5/19/05, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael Hudson wrote: > > > This is, to me, neat and clear. I don't find the idea that iterators > > are tied to exactly 1 for loop an improvement (even though they > > usually will be). > > To fix this in a fully backward-compatible way, we > need some way of distinguishing generators that > expect to be finalized.
I don't see anything that needs to be "fixed" here. Sure, generators that expect to be finalised will not be finalised simply by the fact that a for loop exits, but that's fine - it's not part of the spec of a for loop that it does finalise the generator. Adding that guarantee to a for loop is a change in spec, not a fix. Paul. _______________________________________________ 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
