On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: [..] >> > OK, this really needs to be made very clear early in the PEP. Maybe this >> > final sentence provides the key requirement: changes outside the >> > generator >> > should make it into the generator when next() is invoked, unless the >> > generator itself has made an override; but changes inside the generator >> > should not leak out through next(). >> >> It's covered here with two examples: >> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0550/#ec-semantics-for-generators > > > I think what's missing is the fact that this is one of the key motivating > reasons for the design (starting with v2 of the PEP). When I encountered > that section I just skimmed it, assuming it was mostly just showing how to > apply the given semantics to generators. I also note some issues with the > use of tense here -- it's a bit confusing to follow which parts of the text > refer to defects of the current (pre-PEP) situation and which parts refer to > how the proposal would solve these defects.
I see. The proposal always uses present tense to describe things it adds, and I now see that this is indeed very confusing. This needs to be fixed. Yury _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
