Andy Sy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Greg Ewing wrote: > > There's a lot more to this than syntax. The oddities > > surrounding Python generators are mostly due to their > > "one-level-deep" nature, i.e. they're not full coroutines. > > And there are deep implementation reasons for that. > > Does this mean that Py3K intends to reuse major portions of > Python 2.x's implementation?
Aahz just answered this. > If Py3K intends to break backwards compatibility, doesn't this > mean that if a simpler and more inclusive, more general > asynchronous mechanism than generators is possible, then there > should be no qualms about dropping or supplementing the latter? > Or would this be enough of a difference that it would make for > 'a different language'? >From the discussion I've been paying attention to over the last few years, *some* parts of Py3k will be backwards incompatible. The question really is whether or not Io or stackless style continuations are better than what currently exists. In my experience, I find generators to be quite easy to write, use, modify, and read. Without a sample syntax, execution semantic, and/or implementation (as Guido has already asked for), it is quite difficult for us to measure the positive or negative change (in readability, writability, understandability, etc.) over what we already have. - Josiah _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
