Guido van Rossum wrote: > On 2/28/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > PEP 342 opted to extend the generator API instead (using "send") and leave > > the > > iterator protocol alone for the time being. > > One of the main reasons for this was the backwards compatibility > problems at the C level.
I'm really quite happy either way. Having the functionality available in some way is the important thing. I'd still like to see next(x) / x.__next__() in some form in 3.0 for the sake of consistency, though. -- Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+ University of Canterbury, | Carpe post meridiam! | Christchurch, New Zealand | (I'm not a morning person.) | [EMAIL PROTECTED] +--------------------------------------+ _______________________________________________ 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
