Since next() is equivalent to send(None) we don't really need the next() method do we?
On 3/7/07, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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/guido%40python.org > -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
