At 03:33 PM 5/3/05 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: >[Phillip] > > That reminds me of something; in PEP 333 I proposed use of a 'close()' > > attribute in anticipation of PEP 325, so that web applications implemented > > as generators could take advantage of resource cleanup. Is there any > > chance that as part of PEP 340, 'close()' could translate to the same as > > '__exit__(StopIteration)'? If not, modifying PEP 333 to support '__exit__' > > is going to be a bit of a pain, especially since there's code in the field > > now with that assumption. > >Maybe if you drop support for the "separate protocol" alternative... :-)
I don't understand you. Are you suggesting a horse trade, or...? >I had never heard of that PEP. How much code is there in the field? Maybe a dozen or so web applications and frameworks (including Zope, Quixote, PyBlosxom) and maybe a half dozen servers (incl. Twisted and mod_python). A lot of the servers are based on my wsgiref library, though, so it probably wouldn't be too horrible a job to make everybody add support; I might even be able to fudge wsgiref so that wsgiref-based servers don't even see an issue. Modifying the spec is potentially more controversial, however; it'll have to go past the Web-SIG, and I assume the first thing that'll be asked is, "Why aren't generators getting a close() method then?", so I figured I should ask that question first. I'd completely forgotten about this being an issue until Raymond mentioned g.close(); I'd previously gotten the impression that PEP 325 was expected to be approved, otherwise I wouldn't have written support for it into PEP 333. >Written by whom? I used to know who all had written implementations, but there are now too many to keep track of. _______________________________________________ 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
