On 3/7/07, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ka-Ping Yee schrieb: > > On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Georg Brandl wrote: > >> Ka-Ping Yee schrieb: > >> > On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Guido van Rossum wrote: > >> >> Having now read this entire thread I am going to accept Ping's PEP. > >> >> Adding the sentinel argument to the next() builtin was what did it for > >> >> me: it neatly solves the problem if having to catch that StopIteration > >> >> in 99% of the cases. > >> > > >> > Okay, this is checked in as PEP 3114. > >> > >> Patch is at http://python.org/sf/1675363. > > > > Thanks for doing this work! > > I hope it helps getting a decision about the PEP. > > One thing that struck me while doing the next -> __next__ transition > was the new asymmetry between generator methods; there is now send() > and close(), but no next() anymore. >
Oooh, that's a good point. I guess that would mean generators should keep their 'next' methods for API symmetry with 'send' and 'close'; calling next() just for when you are not sending something in would be icky. But of course having two methods that do the exact same thing seems a little icky as well. I was on the fence with this whole proposal, but this makes me -0 on the rename and +0 on the new built-in. -Brett _______________________________________________ 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
