[Guido] > > An alternative that solves this would be to give __next__() a second > > argument, which is a bool that should be true when the first argument > > is an exception that should be raised. What do people think? > > > > I'll add this to the PEP as an alternative for now.
[Nick] > An optional third argument (raise=False) seems a lot friendlier (and more > flexible) than a typecheck. I think I agree, especially since Phillip's alternative (a different method) is even worse IMO. > Yet another alternative would be for the default behaviour to be to raise > Exceptions, and continue with anything else, and have the third argument be > "raise_exc=True" and set it to False to pass an exception in without raising > it. You've lost me there. If you care about this, can you write it up in more detail (with code samples or whatever)? Or we can agree on a 2nd arg to __next__() (and a 3rd one to next()). -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
