Guido van Rossum wrote: [SNIP] > 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.) >
I prefer the original proposal. -Brett _______________________________________________ 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
