On Fri, 12 Nov 2010, Ian wrote: > On Nov 12, 2:47 am, "John O'Hagan" <resea...@johnohagan.com> wrote: > > I have tried using a deep update function on the original nested > > dictionary, but this only works if I change the contents of a list, not > > if I want to, say, change a node from a list to a dictionary or vice > > versa, because in that case I'm not operating on the same object the > > generator is using. > > > > If anyone's still reading :) , how can I send new values to arbitrary > > sub- generators? > > I think you're focusing too heavily on generators. Just because a > nifty language construct exists doesn't mean that it's the right thing > to use in all situations. It sounds to me that what you really want > are objects with .next() methods and externally visible state -- i.e. > iterators.
Oddly enough I had just begun to replace some of the generator routines in the real program with iterator classes, but it didn't occur to me that they could solve the nesting problem. I guess I could access the parameters of nested iterators like: MyIter().param.iterator.param and so on? I'll try it, thanks. Although if it can be done with built-in functionality... > Or it might be that coroutines are what you're really after, although > I think they would be difficult to manage in the way that you are > doing. >From the rather slight docs on these features, it seems they are tailor-made for what I'm doing (in fact my exact solution is described there as "hackish"!), but so far I can't see how they could solve my nesting problem. [...] Thanks, John -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
