On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:25:51 -0500, Douglas Alan wrote: > While writing a generator, I was just thinking how Python needs a > "yield_all" statement. With the help of Google, I found a pre-existing > discussion on this from a while back in the Lightweight Languages > mailing list. I'll repost it here in order to improve the chances of > this enhancement actually happening someday.
You should also have looked for the responses to that. Tim Peter's response is available from http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/624273 as linked from http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/python-dev/758572 Here is the most relevant parts. I'm not bothered -- this comes with the territory. If/when full-fledged coroutines make it in too, people worried about that can use them instead. Curious fact: I *was* worried about the worst-case time aspects of "simple generators" in Icon years ago, but in practice never ever got burned by it. And rewriting stuff to use Icon co-expressions instead invariably resulted in messier code that ran significantly slower in virtually all cases, except for the ones I *contrived* to prove the O() difference. BTW, Python almost never worries about worst-case behavior, and people using Python dicts instead of, e.g., balanced trees, get to carry their shame home with them hours earlier each day <wink> . Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list