On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 3:45 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> The part I found most compelling was when you pointed out that in the
> special method implementations, the normal return path was always spelled
> with "return", while the "value missing" result was indicated with a special
> kind of exceptio
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:48 AM, MRAB wrote:
> The PEP says """any generator that depends on an implicitly-raised
> StopIteration to terminate it will have to be rewritten to either catch
> that exception or use a for-loop"""
>
> Shouldn't that be "... explicitly-raised ...", because returning rai
On 2014-11-19 20:10, Guido van Rossum wrote:
There's a new PEP proposing to change how to treat StopIteration
bubbling up out of a generator frame (not caused by a return from
the frame). The proposal is to replace such a StopIteration with a
RuntimeError (chained to the original StopIteration),
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014, at 15:10, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> There's a new PEP proposing to change how to treat StopIteration bubbling
> up out of a generator frame (not caused by a return from the frame). The
> proposal is to replace such a StopIteration with a RuntimeError (chained
> to
> the orig
There's a new PEP proposing to change how to treat StopIteration bubbling
up out of a generator frame (not caused by a return from the frame). The
proposal is to replace such a StopIteration with a RuntimeError (chained to
the original StopIteration), so that only *returning* from a generator (or
f
