At 01:18 PM 5/6/2005 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: >There's one alternative possible (still orthogonal to PEP 340): >instead of __next__(), we could add an optional argument to the next() >method, and forget about the next() built-in. This is more compatible >(if less future-proof). Old iterators would raise an exception when >their next() is called with an argument, and this would be a >reasonable way to find out that you're using "continue EXPR" with an >iterator that doesn't support it. (The C level API would be a bit >hairier but it can all be done in a compatible way.)
+1. _______________________________________________ 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
